United States v. Ringling

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2009
• Docket: 09-6082
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL HENDRICKS J. RINGLING, a/k/a Michael Hendricks Jaysen, a/k/a John Kasell,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:91-cr-00041-F-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Hendricks J. Ringling, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Michael Hendricks J. Ringling appeals the district

court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). Ringling contends that

he was entitled to the 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 § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706.

Because Ringling was sentenced on the basis of his status as a

career offender and not on the basis of the drug quantity

attributed to him, we find that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying Ringling’s motion. See United

States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, we 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