United States v. Terry Dowdell , 669 F. App'x 662 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6873
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TERRY L. DOWDELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00107-NKM-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry L. Dowdell, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry L. Dowdell appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
(2012). Although the district court treated Dowdell’s filing as
a substantive § 3582 motion, we conclude that the court’s denial
of relief nevertheless was proper. Courts may compel action
from the Government “only if [it] owes [the movant] a clear
nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616
(1984). Federal law vests the Bureau of Prisons with discretion
to seek a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A). See
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (“[T]he court, upon motion of the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of
imprisonment . . . after considering the [relevant]
factors. . . .”); United States v. Ellis, 527 F.3d 203, 205 (1st
Cir. 2008) (noting that consideration for sentencing relief
under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is “a matter of discretion for the Bureau
[of Prisons]”). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial
of relief and deny as moot Dowdell’s motion to expedite.
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