Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Manigault, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Andre Manigault's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. While noting a typographical error in the district court's order regarding Manigault's base offense level, the Court of Appeals determined that this error did not affect the district court's decision to deny the sentence reduction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-10-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6832

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Andre Manigault's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. While noting a typographical error in the district court's order regarding Manigault's base offense level, the Court of Appeals determined that this error did not affect the district court's decision to deny the sentence reduction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. Manigault, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Andre Manigault's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. While noting a typographical error in the district court's order regarding Manigault's base offense level, the Court of Appeals determined that this error did not affect the district court's decision to deny the sentence reduction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-6832

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANDRE MANIGAULT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (3:95-cr-00488-JFA-1)

    Submitted:

    October 21, 2008

    Decided:

    October 27, 2008

    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Andre Manigault, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United


    States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, Jane Barrett Taylor,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Andre
    denying

    his

    Manigault

    motion

    3582(c)(2) (2000).

    for

    appeals
    sentence

    the

    district

    reduction

    courts

    under

    18

    order
    U.S.C.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by


    the district court.*

    United States v. Manigault, No. 3:95-cr-

    00488-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2008). 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.
    AFFIRMED

    We note a typographical error in the district courts order


    on page one in the recitation of Manigaults advisory guideline
    calculation. The district court intended to state that Manigaults
    base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines
    was 38, not 3, for his violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000). This
    typographical error does not affect, however, the district courts
    considered reasoning in denying Manigaults motion for sentence
    reduction.
    - 2 -

    You might also like