Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06009/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RAFAEL CEE-ERWIN SOLOMON, a/k/a J, a/k/a Rip,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00203-1)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory 

McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6009 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon appeals the denial of his motion 

for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). “We review de novo a district 

court’s ruling on the scope of its legal authority under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 

256 (4th Cir. 2015). Solomon argues that United States v. Munn, 

595 F.3d 183, 192 (4th Cir. 2010) authorizes the modification of 

a career offender’s sentence where, as in his case, a downward 

variance was granted. But even if our holding in Munn, which 

considered an overrepresentation departure, could encompass a 

downward variance, the Sentencing Commission abrogated Munn by 

defining “applicable guideline range” as “the guideline range 

that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history 

category determined . . . before consideration of any departure 

provision . . . or any variance.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual App. C, Amend. 759 (2011); see USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.n.1(A). 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Solomon, No. 3:11-cr-00203-1 (S.D.W. 

Va. Nov. 25, 2015; Dec. 14, 2015). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-6009 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6009 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3