Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07808/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07808-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chester C. Griffiths
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7808

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHESTER GRIFFITHS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:06-cr-00388-JFM-1)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chester C. Griffiths, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7808 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM

Chester Griffiths appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) pursuant to Guidelines Amendment 782. For 

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

A district court is authorized to reduce a defendant’s 

sentence of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) only if the 

defendant’s sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” through 

a retroactively applicable Guidelines amendment. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 1B1.10(a)(1) (2006). As the court determined at sentencing, 

Griffiths’ Guidelines range was 120 months’ imprisonment because 

the Guidelines range established by his total offense level and 

criminal history category was lower than the statutory mandatory 

minimum applicable to his offense. See 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851 (2012); USSG § 5G1.1(b); USSG ch. 5, pt. A 

(sentencing table). Amendment 782 did not lower Griffiths’ 

mandatory minimum sentence, and his Guidelines range remains 120 

months. See United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 286-87 (4th 

Cir. 2013). Because Griffiths is ineligible for a sentence 

reduction under § 3582(c)(2), we find no abuse of discretion in 

the court’s denial of Griffiths’ motion. See United States v. 

Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

Appeal: 15-7808 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

Appeal: 15-7808 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3