US v. Shannon Scott, No. 10-7466 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7466 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHANNON VONTREAL SCOTT, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-00078-FL-1) Submitted: March 14, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shannon Vontreal Scott, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Shannon Vontreal Scott appeals from the district court s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based upon the 2007 and 2008 crack cocaine amendments ( USSG ) to (2006). the The U.S. Sentencing district court reducing Scott s sentence by one month. Guidelines granted the Manual motion, Scott filed a timely notice of appeal, and he argues that the district court should have reduced his sentence below his Guidelines range by the same percentage it departed below his original range. We affirm. We review an order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, A 186 (4th Cir. 2010). district court abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to exercise discretion, or if it relies on an erroneous factual or legal premise. Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 DIRECTV, (4th Cir. 2008) (citing James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993)). Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the term of imprisonment of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered, if the amendment retroactively applicable. § 1B1.10(c), p.s. (2010). is listed in the Guidelines as 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also USSG Amendment 706 of the Guidelines lowered the offense levels for drug offenses involving certain 2 amounts of crack cocaine. Under Amendment 706, a defendant whose offense of conviction involved crack cocaine is eligible for a reduced sentence only applicable Guidelines range. if the Amendment lowers his United States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 244 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 182 (2009); see also USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. [T]he decision about whether to reduce a sentence is discretionary on the part of the district court. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). The Guidelines provide that, where the original term of imprisonment imposed was below a defendant s Guidelines range, a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range may § 3582(c)(2) be appropriate motion. following USSG a successful U.S.C. In § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). 18 United States v. Fennell, 592 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2010), we found that the district court committed reversible procedural error where it believed it was required to depart from a defendant s amended Guidelines range using the same methodology departed from the original Guidelines range. with which Id. at 509. it Here, there is no evidence that the district court believed it lacked authority to calculate the departure using a different method. Accordingly court. legal we affirm the judgment of the district We dispense with oral arguments because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.
