Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

341 F. App'x 910

United States v. Bashford

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided August 27, 2009

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2009-08-27

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3582

Relies on United States v. Booker · Kimbrough v. United States · United States v. Dunphy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-08-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

¶2 Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

¶3 Carlton Bashford appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Bashford asserts on appeal that the district court erred in declining to sentence him below the amended Guidelines range for crack cocaine offenses, contending that a lower sentence would be permitted by Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). However, this argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 2401, 173 L.Ed.2d 1296 (2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the low end of the amended Guidelines range. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004) (stating standard of review).

¶4 Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court and we deny the motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

/341/fappx/910 · .json · Public domain