Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry L. DOWDELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6873
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 13, 2016
    Decided: October 18, 2016
    Terry L. Dowdell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant . United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry L. Dowdell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C, § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2012). Although the district court treated Dowdell’s filing as a substantive § 3582 motion, we conclude that the court’s denial of relief nevertheless was proper. Courts may compel action from the Government “only if [it] owes [the movant] a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984). Federal law vests the Bureau of Prisons with discretion to seek a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (“[T]he court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment ... after considering the [relevant] factors....”); United States v. Ellis, 527 F.3d 203, 205 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that consideration for sentencing relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is “a matter of discretion for the Bureau [of Prisons]”). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of relief and deny as moot Dowdell’s motion to expedite.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED