US v. Daryle McNeill, No. 16-7080 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARYLE LAMONT MCNEILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cr-00210-F-1) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 28, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daryle Lamont McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daryle Lamont McNeill appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. (providing 2010) district court defendant who may has standard). modify been the Under term of § 3582(c)(2), imprisonment sentenced . . . based on a the “of a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. § 3582(c)(2); (2016). see U.S. Section Sentencing 1B1.10(d) of Guidelines the 18 U.S.C. Manual Guidelines § 1B1.10 lists the amendments that receive retroactive application, and this list does not include Amendment 794. Therefore, Amendment 794 cannot be given retroactive effect in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, dispense with contentions are we oral affirm the argument adequately district because presented in court’s the the facts order. We and legal 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.