US v. Jamar Jones
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
April 23, 2009
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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, 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
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
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?