US v. James Pettu, No. 10-6494 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6494 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES L. PETTUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00009-HEH-1) Submitted: June 15, 2010 Decided: July 13, 2010 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James L. Pettus, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James L. Pettus appeals the district denying his motion to alter or amend a judgment. Pettus s motion to alter or court s order We affirm. amend was filed in response to the district court s partial grant of his motion for a reduction (2006). in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) The district court awarded Pettus a two-level reduction in his total offense level pursuant to Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual and reduced Pettus s sentence from 180 months imprisonment to 154 months. Pettus claimed in his motion to alter or amend that he should have been sentenced at the low end of the revised Guidelines range. On appeal, he argues that he was entitled to a full resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 245 (2007). In United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010), we concluded that a district court is without jurisdiction to entertain a motion to alter or amend a judgment granting or denying relief on a § 3582(c) motion unless the motion to alter or amend was made to correct an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. Because Pettus challenges the merits of the district court s decision in his motion to alter 2 or amend, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion. * We court. legal before therefore affirm the judgment of the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED * Our decision to affirm is also supported by the Supreme Court s recent holding that the remedial aspect of Booker does not make the Sentencing Guidelines advisory in a § 3582(c) proceeding. Dillon v. United States, 2010 WL 2400109 (U.S. June 17, 2010) (No. 09-6338); see also United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009) (holding same). 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.