United States v. Thomas Watson

474 F. App'x 92

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 1, 2012
• Docket: 12-6383
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS GARRETT WATSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00327-NCT-1)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Garrett Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Thomas Garrett Watson appeals the district court’s

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce

his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual (2011). We have reviewed the record and

conclude the district court properly found it lacked the

authority to reduce Watson’s sixty-month sentence, which was the

statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Munn, 595

F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that this court

reviews de novo the district court’s “conclusion on the scope of

its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2)”); see also Dillon v.

United States, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690–92 (2010)

(clarifying that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing,

but rather permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds

established by the Sentencing Commission). Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United

States v. Watson, No. 1:05–cr–00327-NCT–1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 21,

2012). Further, we deny Watson’s motion for the appointment of

counsel. 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