United States v. Gregory Garrison, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 29, 2025
• Docket: 24-6906
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6906 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6906

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY JAMES GARRISON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00065-JAG-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory James Garrison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6906 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory James Garrison, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. “In general, a court may not modify a term

of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “However, section 3582(c)(2) provides

that a district court may reduce a sentence in the case of a defendant who has been

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We

review the denial of a motion under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. Id.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. In particular, the record

confirms that Garrison’s career offender status drove his category VI criminal history,

regardless of the status points added to his criminal history score or the seriousness of his

prior convictions. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(1) (providing that a district court may reduce a

defendant’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) only if “the guideline range applicable

to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the

Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below”).

Accordingly, we deny Garrison’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the

district court’s order. United States v. Garrison, No. 3:19-cr-00065-JAG-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug.

9, 2024). 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