US v. Jamar Jones

Filing 920090430

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7086 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAR L. JONES, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?