US v. James Tillman, No. 09-8184 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 19, 2010.
Download PDF
Rehearing granted, October 19, 2010 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8184 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES TILLMAN, Defendant Appellant. No. 09-8190 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMERSON DEVOIR TILLMAN, Defendant Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:00-cr-00137-AW-2; 8:00-cr-00137-AW-1) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 9, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Tillman and Jamerson Devoir Tillman, Appellants Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James Tillman and Jamerson Devoir Tillman appeal from the district court s orders granting their 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motions and reducing their sentences. They argue on appeal that they should receive a full resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), applying the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory and allowing them challenge the leadership role enhancements they received. to The Tillmans contention that they are eligible for sentencing anew is without merit. See Dillon v. United States, __ S. Ct. __, No. 09-6338, 2010 WL 2400109, at *5 (June 17, 2010) ( By its terms, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding, it merely provides for modification of the term of imprisonment.); United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). We have reviewed the records in these cases and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. district court s orders. Accordingly, we affirm the 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 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.
