UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7172
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAVIN DATRON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-D-1)
Submitted: April 8, 2016 Decided: April 18, 2016
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kavin Datron Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson
Kocher, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kavin Datron Williams appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. In
denying Williams’ motion, the district court determined that
Williams received a statutory minimum sentence. See United
States v. Williams, No. 4:10-cr-00088-D-1 (E.D.N.C. July 9,
2015). We ordered the Government to file a response addressing
whether (1) the Government opposes Williams’ 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion; and (2) an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) movant
may obtain relief from the statutory minimum sentence
established at sentencing where he committed his offense before
the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) but was
sentenced after the effective date of the FSA and before the
United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dorsey v. United
States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012).
In its response, the Government asserts that Williams did
not receive a statutory minimum sentence and may be eligible for
a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The
Government has filed a motion to vacate the district court’s
order and remand the case to the district court to allow further
development of the record. Williams agrees with the motion.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to vacate and
remand, vacate the district court’s July 9, 2015 order, and
2
remand for further proceedings. We deny, as moot, Williams’
motion to appoint counsel to respond to the Government’s motion
to vacate and remand. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3