US v. Kevin Linder, No. 12-7169 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7169 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN MAURICE LINDER, a/k/a Killer Kev, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00037-RLV-5) Submitted: November 9, 2012 Decided: November 28, 2012 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Maurice Linder, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A. O Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Maurice Linder appeals the district court s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Although the district court granted Linder s motion, the court did not reduce his sentence to the full extent he requested. no reversible offense range level of error. to 34, 262-327 We have reviewed the record and find The which months, district resulted after court in which a the reduced revised Linder s Guidelines court imposed a sentence of 156 months, less than 60% of the low end of the revised Guidelines range. Linder thus received the benefit of Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, which implemented the Fair Sentencing Act. The court was not at liberty to depart below the statutory minimum sentence of ten years, which still applied in Linder s case because the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply to defendants like Linder who were sentenced before the Act s 2010 effective date. Moreover, Linder s ineffective assistance claim is meritless because there is no right to counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with legal contentions oral are argument adequately 2 because presented the in the facts and materials before this 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.
