US v. Cory Newman, No. 11-6260 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6260 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CORY NEWMAN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:04-cr-01127-GRA-8) Submitted: June 3, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cory Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cory Newman appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. sentence. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction of 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. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008). Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the term of imprisonment of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on lowered, a if sentencing the amendment retroactively applicable. Sentencing (2010). range Guidelines that has is listed in subsequently the been Guidelines as 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S. Manual § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A), (c), p.s. Newman seeks a reduction pursuant to Amendment 742. USSG App x C Supp., Amend. 742. This Amendment is not among those listed in USSG § 1B1.10(c), p.s., and is therefore not retroactively applicable. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid 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.