Case ID: f-appx_312/html/0543-01.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. Shakir Aasim VENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-7878.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 19, 2009.
    Decided: Feb. 25, 2009.
    Shakir Aasim Venson, Appellant Pro Se.
    John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

UNPUBLISHED

PER CURIAM:

Shakir Aasim Venson appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We find the district did not abuse its discretion granting Venson’s motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004) (stating standard of review). Insofar as Venson suggests the court could have considered an even lower sentence below the Guidelines sentencing range, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.2009) (“[A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Venson, No. 3:97-cr-00073-1 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 15, 2008). 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.