# United States v. Norris Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 24, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3157610

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 24, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3157610

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

NORRIS JUANDRON BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cr-00843-RBH-2)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norris Juandron Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Norris Juandron Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence

reduction. We generally review an order granting or denying a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See United

States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). We review

de novo, however, a district court’s determination of the scope

of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Dunphy,

551 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, because Brown was

sentenced as a career offender, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing

Guidelines, which reduced the offense levels applicable to drug

offenses, did not have the effect of lowering his applicable

Guidelines range. We therefore 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 in the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3157610. Public record. Not legal advice.