US v. Miguel Lara-Alvarez, No. 09-6931 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6931 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MIGUEL ANGEL LARA-ALVAREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:01-cr-00130-F-3) Submitted: February 26, 2010 Decided: August 20, 2010 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miguel Angel Lara-Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Miguel Angel Lara-Alvarez appeals from the district court s grant in part of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), based on the crack cocaine amendments to the sentencing guidelines. Lara-Alvarez had requested a two-level reduction in his offense level and a sentence at the bottom of the amended guideline range. The district court reduced his offense level, but imposed a sentence at the top of the amended guideline range. Lara-Alvarez asserts on appeal that the district court had jurisdiction under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. resentencing hearing and guided by sentencing only § 3553(a) the (2006). to 220 He (2005), impose a goals acknowledges to conduct non-guideline set out that in U.S. a full sentence 18 U.S.C. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s. (2008) limits the scope of the proceeding and the extent of the reduction the district court may make under § 3582(c)(2), but contends that, after Booker, this policy mandatory. statement must be regarded as advisory, not We affirm. We review an order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d Lara-Alvarez s claim is without merit because Booker is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. Dillon v. United States, 130 S. 2 Ct. 2683, 2693-94 See (2010) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing, but merely provides for a sentence reduction within the bounds established by the Sentencing Commission, and that Booker does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings); see also United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 252-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). We therefore sentence the court adequately and argument presented would not in aid to the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are motion by counsel. before Lara-Alvarez imposed court. contentions deny the district legal We affirm the the appoint materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
