US v. Jerblonski Addison, No. 08-7513 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7513 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERBLONSKI LEON ADDISON, a/k/a Blonski, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00464-CMC-2) Submitted: March 30, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert W. Louthian, Sr., LOUTHIAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Jane Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerblonski Leon Addison appeals a district court order and amended judgment in a criminal case denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) based on Amendments 706 and 711 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Addison pled guilty to conspiracy to We affirm. possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); 846 (2006). Based on a total offense level of forty-one and a criminal history category of VI, his resulting months to life. Guidelines range of imprisonment was 360 However, because he had two prior felony drug convictions, his statutory mandatory minimum sentence was life, which became his Guideline sentence. the Government s motion for a At sentencing, based on downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006), the district court departed downward Addison to 292 months imprisonment. denied Addison s motion for a and sentenced The court subsequently sentence reduction under § 3582(c), finding the statutory mandatory minimum sentence was not affected Addison by was the not Guidelines eligible for amendments. the reduction The court because noted he was subjected to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence from which the court previously departed 2 based on his substantial assistance. P. 35 The court did grant the Government s Fed. R. Crim. motion and resentenced Addison to 210 months imprisonment. The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines and the amendments are reviewed de novo. Factual findings are See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d reviewed for clear error. 481, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1995). We review the denial of a motion for a reduction in the sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). We without find authority the to district modify court properly Addison s found sentence it pursuant Amendments 706 and 711 of the Sentencing Guidelines. States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 233-36 (4th Cir. 2009). was to See United In Hood, the court held that Amendment 706 did not lower the statutory mandatory minimum sentence and did not have the lowering Hood s Guidelines range of imprisonment. F.3d at 235-36. based on a effect of Hood, 556 Likewise, because Addison s sentence was not sentencing range authorized by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1, which Amendments 706 and 711 amended, it was not available for a modification under § 3582(c). See Hood, 556 F.3d at 233. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order and amended judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the 3 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
