US v. James Elmer Gross, Jr., No. 16-7701 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7701 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES ELMER GROSS, JR., a/k/a Man, a/k/a Grip, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00201-JFM-3) Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: June 1, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Elmer Gross, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Christine Manuelian, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Elmer Gross, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. “We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). After reviewing the transcript from Gross’ resentencing hearing, we conclude that the district court attributed to Gross one kilogram of heroin and five kilograms of cocaine and applied six levels of enhancements. See United States v. Gross, 199 F. App’x 219, 241 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 03-4458). Applying Amendment 782 and the other enhancements used at resentencing, Gross’ new Guidelines range is 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts of conviction. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(c)(5), 2E1.1(c)(2), ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table) (2014). Because the district court varied downward and sentenced Gross to 180 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts, Gross is not eligible for a sentencing reduction. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s. & cmt. n.1(A). Accordingly, we deny Gross’ motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s order. 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 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.