US v. Sironda Sanders, No. 15-7332 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SIRONDA LAVYREE SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00020-F-1) Submitted: January 13, 2016 Decided: February 11, 2016 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sironda Lavyree Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Katherine Cooley, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sironda Lavyree Sanders appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction based Guidelines. error. on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm. A district court may reduce a prison term if a defendant’s Guidelines range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and the policy statements. is not reduction not consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). consistent therefore is with authorized applicable under policy § 3582(c)(2) applicable A reduction statements if “an and amendment listed in [U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d) (2014)] does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). We review a district court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its determination regarding the scope of its legal authority de novo. United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). In deciding whether to modify a prison term pursuant to a retroactive amendment “determine the applicable to to amended the the Sentencing guideline defendant if range the Guidelines, that first have been would we amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” 2 USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). such determination, the court shall “In making substitute only the amendments listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave decisions unaffected.” all other guideline application USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1). At sentencing, the district court adopted the presentence report and found that Sanders was a career offender. Applying Amendment 782, her advisory Guidelines range based on her career offender status Commission has has not not lowered changed. the Because range, U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not authorized. a the reduction Sentencing under 18 We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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 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.
