United States v. Hockaday

330 F. App'x 26
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 1, 2009
Docket09-6515
StatusUnpublished

This text of 330 F. App'x 26 (United States v. Hockaday) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Hockaday, 330 F. App'x 26 (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Demetric Hockaday appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Hockaday contends that he was entitled to a reduction under Amendment 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”), which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base. See USSG § 2Dl.l(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C. Amend. 706. Because Hockaday was sentenced on the basis of his status as a career offender, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hockaday’s motion. See United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir.2008); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008); United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 889, 889-90 (8th Cir.2008). *

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying relief. United States v. Hockaday, No. 5:05-cr-00220-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 12, 2009). We also deny Hockaday’s motion to appoint coun *27 sel. 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.

*

Insofar as Hockaday suggests that he was entitled to a full resentencing, his claim is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir.2009) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings "do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2401, 173 L.Ed.2d 1296 (2009).

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

Related

United States v. Moore
541 F.3d 1323 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Sharkey
543 F.3d 1236 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Dunphy
551 F.3d 247 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Keifer Thomas
524 F.3d 889 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
330 F. App'x 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hockaday-ca4-2009.