US v. Antione Boyce, No. 17-6051 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTIONE BOYCE, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00383-CCB-3) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antione Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antione Boyce appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Although Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered offense levels applicable to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d), p.s. (2016); USSG app. C, amend. 782, it “does not have the effect of lowering [Boyce’s] applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision.” USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A). Accordingly, Boyce was not entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court thus did not reversibly err in denying Boyce’s motion. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010), abrogation on other grounds recognized in United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 438-42 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial order. United States v. Boyce, No. 1:07-cr-00383-CCB-3 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2016). 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.