US v. Johnny Joseph, No. 08-7153 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7153 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNY JOSEPH, a/k/a Joe Sanders, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:00-cr-00067-CMC-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Joseph, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Johnny Joseph appeals from the district court s order granting in part his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based on the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court reduced Joseph s sentence to the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. Joseph asserts that the district court erred in failing to recalculate his drug quantity and in failing to permit him to respond to the Probation Office s recommendation. However, in a § 3582 proceeding, the district court may only consider the effect of the retroactive amendment, Guidelines issues. not any by sentenced the to district the sentencing or United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s., comment. (n.2) (2008). error other court lowest was Further, any procedural harmless, available as sentence. Joseph See was United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that district court lacks jurisdiction to minimum of amended Guidelines range). the district court s order. reduce sentence Accordingly, we affirm We grant Joseph s motion to file supplemental authorities and deny his motion for remand. dispense with oral argument below because 2 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.