US v. Jamar Jones

Filing 920090430

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAR L. JONES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00964-l)

Submitted:

April 23, 2009

Decided:

April 30, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamar L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Jamar L. Jones appeals the district court's order

denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. court § 3582(c)(2) erred by (2006). to Jones reduce argues his that the district upon

failing

sentence

based

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 Jones's minimum to 120

associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels." States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009). guideline sentence, range, was 120 because to 135 of a statutory He was mandatory sentenced

months.

months, a sentence later reduced to 108 months for substantial assistance, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and USSG § 5K1.1. The district court correctly concluded that, on

account of the statutory mandatory minimum, Amendment 706 "does not have the effect of lowering" Jones's guideline range. 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A). USSG

Accordingly, a reduction in Jones's Further, the sentence for of

sentence is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). fact that the district is court reduced to Jones's the

substantial

assistance

irrelevant

applicability

Amendment 706. the decision of

Hood, 556 F.3d at 234. the district court. 2

Accordingly, we affirm 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

3