US v. Franklin Felton, No. 08-7863 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7863 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANKLIN LAJOY FELTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-14) Submitted: March 30, 2009 Decided: April 10, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Lajoy Felton, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Franklin Lajoy Felton appeals the district court s minute entry denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We affirm. We review an order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) See United States v. Goines, motion for abuse of discretion. 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating that § 3582(c)(2) is subject to the discretion of the district court ). Based on relevant Felton s conduct and his criminal history category, initial Sentencing Guidelines range of imprisonment was 324 to 405 months. However, Felton s Guidelines sentence was adjusted to reflect the statutory minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Because his sentence was not based on a sentencing range lowered by Amendment 706, he was not eligible for a sentence reduction. United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 233-36 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, entry. we affirm the district court s minute We deny as moot Felton s motion for an extension of time in which to note an appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.