United States v. Thompson

324 F. App'x 244
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Thompson. Read the opinion of the Court — 263 F. App'x 374
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 29, 2009·No. 08-7037·Unpublished

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kareem R. Thompson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Thompson argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp.2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. As we recently observed, “Amendment 706 ... amended § 2D1.1 of *245 the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels.” United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir.2009). Thompson’s sentence was determined by the career offender guideline, USSG § 4B1.1, and was not based on a sentencing range lowered by the amendment. The fact that the district court reduced Thompson’s sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 is irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706. Id. at 234. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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.

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

United States v. Thompson, 324 F. App'x 244 (4th Cir. 2009).

324 F. App'x 244 (United States v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Hood
556 F.3d 226 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)