United States v. Marcellus Dancy, III , 625 F. App'x 215 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6065
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCELLUS LEWIS DANCY, III, a/k/a Sugar Bear,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00042-RBS-TEM-1)
Submitted: May 5, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcellus Lewis Dancy, III, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew
Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcellus Lewis Dancy, III, appeals from the district
court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion
to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 to the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2014). A district court’s
decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its conclusion on the
scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de
novo. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Dancy’s motion. The
court plainly understood its authority to reduce Dancy’s
sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, see United States v.
Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2010); USSG
§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), p.s., but declined to do so based on the
facts and circumstances of Dancy’s case, with which it was
abundantly familiar. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193,
196-97 (4th Cir. 2013). Moreover, despite Dancy’s claim to the
contrary, it is well settled that the district court is not
required to provide individualized reasoning when deciding a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724,
728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), and the record does not support Dancy’s
argument that the court failed to consider the relevant 18
2
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195-
97.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
3