US v. Marcus Franklin, No. 10-6144 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6144 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MARCUS FRANKLIN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00192-REP-1) Submitted: November 8, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amy Leigh Austin, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus denying his Franklin motion § 3582(c) (2006). for appeals the reduction district of court s sentence, 18 order U.S.C. Our review of the record discloses that the gun and drug counts were grouped for purposes of determining Franklin s advisory Guidelines range. Amendment 706 of the sentencing Although application of guidelines would reduce the offense level for the drug count, the Amendment does not apply to the gun count. [T]he offense level applicable to a Group is the offense level . . . for the [more] serious of the counts comprising the Group, i.e., the [higher] offense level of the counts in the Group. § 3D1.3(a) (2008). U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Because the offense level for the firearm count is greater than the offense level (as reduced by Amendment 706) for the drug count, the offense level for the group is that of the gun count. would not have Accordingly, application of Amendment 706 the Guidelines range. of lowering Franklin s advisory See USSG § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). therefore hold that discretion in denying with oral dispense effect the district Franklin s argument court motion, because did and the not We abuse its we affirm. We 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.
