US v. Kenyar Glover, No. 13-6845 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6845 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KENYAR ANDRAKIOS GLOVER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-MR-2) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenyar Andrakios Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenyar Glover appeals the district court order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion reduction under Guidelines Amendment 750. for a sentence The district court denied the motion after finding Glover ineligible for a sentence reduction because his Guidelines range was driven by a statutory mandatory minimum due to a prior felony conviction. On appeal, Glover argues only that he should be resentenced because this predicate conviction no longer qualifies as a felony following the decisions in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), and United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). However, a § 3582(c)(2) motion is not a proper vehicle for raising such a challenge to a defendant s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting sentence reduction for a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission by operation of retroactive Guidelines Amendment); Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690-92 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize full resentencing, but permits sentence reduction only within narrow bounds established by Sentencing Commission). Because Glover identifies no reversible error in the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 adequately presented in the 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.
