US v. Kareem Thompson

Filing 920090429

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREEM R. THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:98-cr-00207-GRA-1) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem R. Thompson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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). court erred by failing to Thompson argues that the district 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 the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels United associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels." 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. sentence The fact that the district court reduced Thompson's under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 is irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706. Id. at 234. Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions the court are and affirm the decision of the district court. oral argument because in the the facts and legal adequately presented materials before argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?