US v. Anthony Wilkins, Jr., No. 10-6464 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6464 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTHONY WILKINS, JR., Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cr-00149-1) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 6, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Wilkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Wilkins, Jr., appeals from the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion in which he sought to have his sentence reduced beyond the two levels afforded by Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Wilkins contention that he is eligible for sentencing anew and application of Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (holding that district courts may consider the crack-to-powdercocaine guideline sentencing ratio as a possible variance from the guidelines) is without merit. basis for See Dillon v. United States, 2010 WL 2400109 (U.S. June 17, 2010) (No. 096338) ( 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 record and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Wilkins, No. 2:07-cr-00149-1 (S.D.W. Va. filed Mar. 4; entered Mar. 5, 2010). 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.