United States v. Dean

333 F. App'x 748
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Dean. Read the opinion of the Court — 604 F.3d 169
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 21, 2009·No. 09-7105·Unpublished

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carl Lamont Dean appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Dean asserts that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2Dl.l(e) (2007 & Supp.2008), USSG App C, Amend. 706. “Amendment 706 ... amended § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels associated with [cocaine base] quantities by two levels.” United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir.2009), cert. denied, - U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2009 WL 2496498 (2009). Because of the statutorily-mandated minimum sentence to which Dean was subject, his Guidelines’ imprisonment range was 240 to 293 months. He was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. On account of the statutory minimum, Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering Dean’s Guidelines range. See USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n. 1(A). Accordingly, a reduction in Dean’s sentence is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Dean, 333 F. App'x 748 (4th Cir. 2009).

333 F. App'x 748 (United States v. Dean) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Hood
556 F.3d 226 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)