US v. Shorter, No. 08-7063 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7063 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM SHORTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00192-JCC-3) Submitted: November 10, 2009 Decided: December 16, 2009 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Morris R. Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Shorter appeals the district court s granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. order Shorter argues that he should receive a new full sentencing hearing in light of United States resentencing v. Booker, applying the 543 U.S. 220 Sentencing This claim is without merit. (2005), or at least Guidelines as advisory. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-53 (4th Cir.) (holding that proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant and stating that the rule in Booker regarding proof requirements for facts that increase criminal penalties has no application to proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) ), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). reversible error. * order. legal Accordingly, we affirm the district court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions before We have reviewed the record and find no the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED * We note that the Government did not file a cross-appeal to challenge the district court s amended sentence below the mandatory minimum 240-month sentence. Therefore, the alleged error may not be addressed on appeal. See Greenlaw v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2559, 2564-67 (2008). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.