US v. Larry Williams, No. 12-7417 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 27, 2012.
Download PDF
ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7417 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY DONNELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a L , Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00045-RLV-DCK-1) Submitted: February 12, 2013 Decided: February 22, 2013 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Norman Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Donnell Williams appeals the district court s orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and his motion for reconsideration. 1 Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the term of imprisonment of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered, if the amendment is listed in the federal Sentencing Guidelines as retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(c), p.s. (2012). Guidelines Amendment 750 lowered the offense levels for drug crimes involving particular quantities of crack and was made retroactively applicable by Amendment § 1B1.10(c); USSG App. C Amends. 750, 759. 759. See USSG The decision to grant such a modification is subject to the discretion of the court. Munn, See USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. background; cf. United States v. 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying abuse of discretion standard to review of order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion). if it fails A district court abuses its discretion adequately to take into account judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise, or if it bases its exercise 1 of discretion on an erroneous factual or By separate order, we granted rehearing in this case. 2 legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court denied Williams motion based on the sentence erroneous was a conclusion that, variance, it because was Williams outside the original advisory [G]uideline system, and therefore he was not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750. However, the fact that the sentence a defendant ultimately receives is a variance does not disqualify an otherwise eligible defendant from consideration for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See USSG for § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (explaining that eligibility sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by [a retroactive Guidelines amendment] that lowers the applicable [G]uideline range (i.e., the [G]uideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines manual or any variance). ). Accordingly, denying Williams we vacate § 3582(c)(2) the motion district and proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 2 court s remand for order further We dispense with oral To the extent that Williams appeals the district court s denial of his motion for reconsideration, the court was without (Continued) 3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED authority to entertain such a motion. 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). 4 United States v. Goodwyn,
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.
