US v. John Wright

Filing 920090223

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN LENWOOD WRIGHT, a/k/a June Bug, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00539-CMH-1)

Submitted:

February 19, 2009

Decided:

February 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lenwood Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Riley, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: John Lenwood Wright appeals the district court's

denial of his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for

reduction of sentence and reducing his sentence to 135 months' imprisonment. Wright contends that he is eligible for a full

resentencing, beyond the limited sentence reduction granted him by the district court under Amendment 706 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines levels for Manual drug ("USSG"), offenses which reduced cocaine the base offense See USSG

involving

base.

§ 2D1.1(c) (2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706.

Wright argues that

USSG § 1B1.10, which limits the extent by which a court may reduce a defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, runs afoul of the Supreme Court's remedial holding in United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

However, we expressly rejected

this contention in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 252-55 (4th Cir. 2009). district court We have reviewed the record and find that the did not abuse its discretion in declining to

grant a further reduction in Wright's sentence. affirm the judgment of the district court. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before

Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions the court are and

adequately

presented

materials

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2