Case ID: f-appx_42/html/0622-01.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. Johnnie D. CUTRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4269.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 13, 2002.
    Decided Aug. 5, 2002.
    Timothy M. Sirk, Keyser, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Sherry L. Muncy, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior > Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie D. Cutright appeals the district court’s decision to sentence him upon remand without the benefit of a downward departure. The district court originally imposed a downward departure to Cutright’s sentence. On appeal by the Government, this court affirmed Cutright’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for further proceedings, finding the downward departure was improper. United States v. Cutright, 2000 WL 1663451 (4th Cir. Nov.6, 2000) (No. 00 4508) (unpublished). On appeal, Cutright argues that the district court erred by not imposing a downward departure. He further argues that because his original term of imprisonment was completed by the time he was resen-tenced, his fundamental liberty interest had crystallized at resentencing. Finding no error, we affirm.

Because this court found that a downward departure was not warranted, upon remand, the district court had no option but to impose a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines and without a downward departure. See United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir.1993). After this court has held the downward departure to be improper in this instance, Cutright cannot reargue the issue on appeal. We further find that Cutright’s argument that his liberty interest had crysal-lized to be without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm Cutright’s sentence. 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.