US v. Lenoris Willard

Filing 920090428

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LENORIS WILLARD, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-29)

Submitted:

April 8, 2009

Decided:

April 28, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lenoris Willard, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Lenoris Willard appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) based on Amendments 706 and 711 to the Sentencing

Guidelines.

We affirm. pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with

Willard

intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); 846 (West 1999 & Supp.

2006).

Based on a total offense level of thirty-five and a

criminal history category of III, his resulting Guidelines range of imprisonment was 210 to 260 months' imprisonment. However,

his statutory mandatory minimum sentence was 240 months, which became the low end of the Guidelines sentence. At sentencing,

based on the Government's motion for a downward departure, the district court departed downward and sentenced Willard to 100 months' imprisonment. The court subsequently denied Willard's

motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c), finding the statutory mandatory minimum sentence was not affected by the Guidelines amendments. for the reduction minimum The court noted Willard was not eligible he from was subject the to a statutory previously

because sentence

mandatory

which

court

departed based on his substantial assistance.

2

The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines and the amendments are reviewed de novo. reviewed for clear error. Factual findings are

See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d We review the denial of a motion

481, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1995).

for a reduction in the sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. Cir. 2004). We without find the to district modify court properly sentence found it was to United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th

authority

Willard's

pursuant

Amendments 706 and 711 of the Sentencing Guidelines. States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2009).

See United In Hood,

the court held that Amendment 706 did not lower the statutory mandatory lowering Likewise, sentencing minimum Hood's because range sentence Guidelines Willard's authorized and did not of have the effect of Id. on a

range

imprisonment. was not based

sentence by U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual § 2D1.1, which Amendments 706 and 711 amended, it was not subject to a modification under § 3582(c). at 235-36. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We See Hood, 556 F.3d

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3