US v. Ryan Lansdowne, No. 09-6933 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6933 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RYAN O NEIL LANSDOWNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:00-cr-00185-TSE-1) Submitted: October 21, 2009 Decided: October 30, 2009 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan O Neil Lansdowne, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Kimberly Ann Riley, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ryan O Neil Lansdowne appeals the district court s order granting his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Applying Amendment 706 of the Guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) App. C Supp. Amend. sentence by 706, thirty the district months to court 262 reduced months of Lansdowne s imprisonment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Lansdowne distribute offense over level was 1.5 of held responsible kilograms thirty-six of for cocaine under base, Amendment §§ 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s., 2D1.1(c)(2) (2008). conspiring for to base See 706. a USSG However, because he qualified as a career offender, see USSG § 4B1.1(b)(A), his base offense level is offense level for subsection is thirty-seven. a career greater See offender than the § 4B1.1(b) from the offense ( [I]f table level in the this otherwise applicable, the offense level from the table in this subsection shall apply. ). acceptance of Applying the responsibility, offense level is thirty-four. we three-level find that reduction Lansdowne s for total With a criminal history category of VI, the amended guidelines range is 262 to 327 months. We therefore find that the district reduced Lansdowne s sentence to 262 months. court properly Although Lansdowne argues that he should have received a greater reduction, the 2 district court was not authorized to reduce the sentence below 262 months. court shall Pursuant not reduce to USSG the § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), defendant s term of p.s., the imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range. As we recently ruled, this limitation is jurisdictional. United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 254 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). 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.