US v. Sharon White, No. 08-7601 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7601 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHARON WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (3:99-cr-00007-jpj-3) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharon White, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sharon White appeals a district court order granting her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court applied Amendment 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines to White s total offense level and reduced her sentence to the low end of the amended Guidelines range of imprisonment. We We affirm. find the district court did not abuse its discretion re-sentencing White to the low end of the amended United States v. Goines, 357 Guidelines range of imprisonment. F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). Insofar as White argues the court could have considered an even lower sentence, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) ( [A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant s sentence below the amended guideline range. ). Accordingly, sentence counsel. legal before we reduction. We affirm deny the her order motion granting for White appointment a of 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 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.