US v. Lenoris Willard, No. 08-7081 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7081 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENORIS WILLARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-29) Submitted: April 8, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenoris Willard, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lenoris Willard appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) based Guidelines. on Amendments 706 and 711 to the Sentencing We affirm. Willard pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 2006). §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); 846 (West 1999 & Supp. Based on a total offense level of thirty-five and a criminal history category of III, his resulting Guidelines range of imprisonment was 210 to 260 months imprisonment. However, his statutory mandatory minimum sentence was 240 months, which became the low end of the Guidelines sentence. At sentencing, based on the Government s motion for a downward departure, the district court departed downward and sentenced Willard to 100 months imprisonment. The court subsequently denied Willard s motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c), finding the statutory mandatory minimum sentence was not affected by the Guidelines amendments. for the mandatory reduction minimum The court noted Willard was not eligible because sentence he from was subject which the departed based on his substantial assistance. 2 to a court statutory previously The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines and the amendments are reviewed de novo. reviewed for clear error. Factual findings are See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d 481, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1995). We review the denial of a motion for a reduction in the sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th discretion. Cir. 2004). We without find authority the to district modify court properly Willard s found sentence it pursuant Amendments 706 and 711 of the Sentencing Guidelines. was to See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2009). In Hood, the court held that Amendment 706 did not lower the statutory mandatory minimum lowering Hood s sentence and Guidelines Likewise, because Willard s sentencing range authorized did range not have of imprisonment. sentence by U.S. was the not effect Id. based Sentencing of on a Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1, which Amendments 706 and 711 amended, it was not subject to a modification under § 3582(c). See Hood, 556 F.3d at 235-36. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
