United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitJun 18, 2008
281 Fed. Appx. 220 (4th Cir. 2008)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • U.S. v. Dunphy

    In an unpublished decision in United States v. Outlaw, this court rejected the defendant's effort to obtain a…

  • U.S. v. Speights

    Fourth and finally, aside from United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2007), a lone Ninth Circuit…

5 Citing cases

Summaries written by judges


  • holding that a variant sentence pursuant to Booker is a form of relief "unavailable under § 3582(c)"

    Summary of this case from U.S. v. Jones

  • rejecting defendant's contention that he was entitled to further sentence reductions pursuant to Booker because Booker is inapplicable to § 3582(c) motions

    Summary of this case from U.S. v. Speights

No. 08-6498.

Submitted: June 10, 2008.

Decided: June 18, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-70114-jlk-1).

Arthur Alan Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Arthur Alan Outlaw appeals the district court's order reducing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). Outlaw seeks further reduction of his sentence pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The relief Outlaw seeks is unavailable under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 473 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a "district court to reduce the sentence imposed on a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o)"); see also United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (" Booker is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions."). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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.