# United States v. Walter Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 25, 2016

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3206855

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 25, 2016
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/3206855

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7901

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WALTER G. BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-11)

Submitted: May 16, 2016 Decided: May 25, 2016

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter G. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Walter G. Brown appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). Generally, we review an order denying a

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

v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). We review de novo,

however, a district court’s determination of the scope of its

authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Williams, 808

F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2015). Based on our review of the

record and relevant legal authorities, we conclude that the

district court did not err in determining that it lacked

authority to grant Brown’s motion for a sentence reduction.

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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3206855. Public record. Not legal advice.