US v. Robert Byrd, No. 10-7737 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7737 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT GENARD BYRD, a/k/a Stank, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01042-TLW-2) Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Genard Byrd seeks to appeal the district court s amended judgment granting the Government s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion and reducing Byrd s sentence from 192 months to 132 months in prison. * Byrd s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court abused its discretion in not reducing Byrd s sentence further. Byrd was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government declined to file a responsive brief. We lack the authority to review a district court s decision concerning Rule 35(b) motions unless sentence was imposed in violation of the law. the ultimate United States v. Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712 14 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147, 148 50 (4th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C. ยง 3742 (2006). not imposed in We conclude that the sentence Byrd received was violation of the law. Thus, we lack the authority to review the district court s amended judgment. * Byrd was originally sentenced to 300 months imprisonment. Pursuant to the amendment to the Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses, Byrd s sentence was later reduced to 192 months imprisonment. 2 Because Byrd asserts no ground upon which this court may review the district court s Rule 35 determination, nor has our independent review of the record, in accordance with Anders, revealed any such ground, we dismiss Byrd s appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Byrd, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Byrd requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Byrd. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
