US v. Dujuan Farrow, No. 10-7672 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7672 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DUJUAN FARROW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00278-REP-2) Submitted: March 15, 2011 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 18, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dujuan Farrow, Appellant Assistant United States Appellee. Pro Se. Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dujuan Farrow appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based on an amendment to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. We review a district court s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under that provision for abuse of discretion; however, we review de novo a court s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c). United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). Section 3582(c)(2) is inapplicable to Farrow because he was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. the district statutory court mandatory properly found, minimum term of he was Rather, as sentenced imprisonment. to the Farrow s sentence is therefore not subject to reduction via § 3582(c)(2). See Munn, 595 F.3d at 187 ( [A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). ); United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 321 (2009). To the extent that Farrow s appellate filings raise issues not contained in his motion to the district court, we decline to entertain them. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the 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.
