United States v. Manigault

299 F. App'x 269

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Andre Manigault appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

* United States v. Manigault, No. 3:95-cr00488-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2008). 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.

We note a typographical error in the district court’s order on page one in the recitation of Manigault’s advisory guideline calculation. The district court intended to state that Manigault’s base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was 38, not 3, for his violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). This typographical error does not affect, however, the district court’s considered reasoning in denying Manigault’s motion for sentence reduction.