Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Pitts, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial grant of Edgar Nelson Pitts' motion to reduce his sentence based on amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. The district court reduced Pitts' sentence to the minimum of the amended guidelines range, but Pitts argued it should have been reduced further. However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court did not have jurisdiction to reduce the sentence beyond the amended guidelines range. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order and denied Pitts' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-02-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7010

    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 partial grant of Edgar Nelson Pitts' motion to reduce his sentence based on amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. The district court reduced Pitts' sentence to the minimum of the amended guidelines range, but Pitts argued it should have been reduced further. However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court did not have jurisdiction to reduce the sentence beyond the amended guidelines range. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order and denied Pitts' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Pitts, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial grant of Edgar Nelson Pitts' motion to reduce his sentence based on amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. The district court reduced Pitts' sentence to the minimum of the amended guidelines range, but Pitts argued it should have been reduced further. However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court did not have jurisdiction to reduce the sentence beyond the amended guidelines range. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order and denied Pitts' motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 08-7010

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EDGAR NELSON PITTS, a/k/a Marlon Smith,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
    James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (6:94-cr-70068-jct-2)

    Submitted:

    February 19, 2009

    Decided:

    February 24, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Edgar Nelson Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant,


    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Edgar Nelson Pitts appeals from the district courts
    order granting in part his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion
    for reduction of sentence based on the crack cocaine amendments
    to the Sentencing Guidelines.

    The district court reduced Pitts

    sentence to the minimum of the amended Guidelines range.


    asserts
    reduce

    that
    his

    jurisdiction

    the

    district

    court

    erred

    sentence.

    However,

    to

    reduce

    further

    the

    Pitts

    in

    failing

    district
    sentence.

    States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009).

    to

    Pitts
    further

    court

    lacked

    See

    United

    Accordingly, we

    affirm the district courts order and deny Pitts 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.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like