United States v. Rolle

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7554

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TROY ROLLE, a/k/a Robert Stan Marks,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-608)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Rolle, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Troy Rolle appeals the district court’s oral order

denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). Rolle sought relief based on the Supreme

Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

The relief Rolle seeks is unavailable under § 3582(c)(2). See

United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 473 (4th Cir. 2004)(noting

that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a “district court to reduce the

sentence imposed on 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(o)”); see also United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220

(11th Cir. 2005) (holding that “Booker is inapplicable to

§ 3582(c)(2) motions”). Accordingly, we affirm. 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

- 2 -