US v. David Jenkins, No. 16-7197 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ANDREA JENKINS, a/k/a Arma G, a/k/a Dread, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00513-JFA-1) Submitted: February 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: WILKINSON, March 15, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Andrea Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Andrea Jenkins appeals both the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782 and its order denying Jenkins’ motion for reconsideration. We review de novo a district court’s ruling on the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court properly determined that it lacked authority to grant a sentence reduction, as Jenkins’ sentence was based on his Fed R. Guidelines Commission. Crim. range P. 11(c)(1)(C) subsequently plea agreement lowered by the and not a Sentencing See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 538-39 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2011); accord United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 623-25 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying Freeman to direct appeal of reversible Rule error 11(c)(1)(C) in the sentence). district motion for reconsideration. Further, court’s denial we find no of Jenkins’ See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We deny Jenkins’ motions for appointment of counsel and to compel the disclosure of court documents. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
