US v. Carlton Bashford, No. 09-6630 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6630 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLTON BASHFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00332-1) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Decided: Circuit Judges, August 27, 2009 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David S. Bracken, DAVID S. BRACKEN, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Jeffrey H. Zeeman, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlton Bashford appeals the district court s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) district (2006). court erred Bashford in asserts declining to on appeal sentence him that the below the amended Guidelines range for crack cocaine offenses, contending that a lower sentence would be permitted by Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). However, this argument is foreclosed by this court s decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). district court did not abuse its discretion Moreover, the in imposing a sentence at the low end of the amended Guidelines range. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court and we deny the motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.