Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0202-01.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. Donnay James RIKARD, Jr., a/k/a DJ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7602
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 29, 2017
    Decided: September 14, 2017
    Donnay James Rikard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, James Hunter May, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donnay James Rikard, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), in which he requested a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

A district court may reduce a prison term if a defendant’s Guidelines range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a district court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision. United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016).

Here, the district court did not err when it denied Rikard’s motions to reduce sentence because he received the benefit of a variance at sentencing and his sentence for his drug offense is less than the bottom of his amended Guidelines range. Accordingly, we grant Rikard’s motion to seal and affirm the district court’s orders denying Rikard’s § 3582(c)(2) motions. 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