US v. Ricky Everhart, No. 12-7111 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICKY EUGENE EVERHART, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00034-RLV-1) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Eugene Everhart, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Eugene Everhart appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) (2011). A district court s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de novo. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Based on our review of the record, we conclude the district court properly declined to reduce Everhart s 188-month sentence, which was the result of a downward variance granted to ameliorate a sentencing disparity between Everhart and his codefendant and in recognition of Everhart s family support and rehabilitative efforts. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), (B), p.s. (directing that the court shall not reduce the defendant s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range, except when the defendant s original sentence was below the original Guidelines range due to the defendant s substantial assistance to the Government). Accordingly, affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. we See United States v. Everhart, No. 5:03 cr 00034 RLV 1 (W.D.N.C. June 20, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
