US v. Marcellus Dancy, III, No. 15-6065 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6065 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCELLUS LEWIS DANCY, III, a/k/a Sugar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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. court plainly sentence understood pursuant Stewart, 595 and 197, p.s., circumstances abundantly familiar. authority Amendment F.3d § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), facts to its but of 782, 203 see (4th declined Dancy’s to to case, reduce United The Dancy’s States v. Cir. 2010); USSG do so based on the with which it was 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 2 to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195- 97. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
