US v. Ron Morrison, No. 14-6914 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6914 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RON KEITH MORRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00107-BR-1) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ron Keith Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Gray Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ron Keith Morrison appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We affirm. The district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to grant a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because Morrison’s Guidelines range was driven by his career offender designation provisions. and not the crack cocaine Guidelines See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). To the extent that Morrison challenges the continued viability of that designation, such pursued in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (explaining a claim is not properly See Dillon v. United States, that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize full resentencing, but permits sentence reduction only within narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Morrison, No. 7:02-cr-00107-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. May 29, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.