US v. Anthony Glenn, No. 09-7496 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7496 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY LEWIS GLENN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:98-cr-00023-F-1) Submitted: April 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Decided: Circuit Judges, May 11, 2010 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lewis Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Lewis Glenn appeals from the district court s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based upon Sentencing Guidelines. changes in law since the crack cocaine amendments to the On appeal, Glenn asserts that, given the he was originally sentenced, the court should have recalculated his Guidelines range without certain enhancements. However, proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant. . . . Rather, § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 are narrow provisions that allow a limited reduction of sentence by the amount specified in an amendment, United while States v. prohibiting Dunphy, 551 a F.3d complete 247, reevaluation. 251-52 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009). the effect sentencing In addition, the district court may only consider of or the retroactive Guidelines issues. amendment, U.S. Sentencing Manual § 1B1.10, p.s., comment. (n.2) (2009). affirm. dispense not any other Guidelines Accordingly, we We deny Glenn s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.