US v. Terrance Thompson

Filing 920090603

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7696 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRANCE BRADLEY THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-LHT-12) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Asheville, North Carolina; Tanzania Cannon-Eckerle, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrance Bradley Thompson appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his amended motion for reconsideration. Thompson argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") 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 "Because on a associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels." States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009). [Thompson's] 240-month Guidelines sentence was based statutory minimum and USSG 5G1.1(b), it was not based on a sentencing range lowered by Amendment 706 . . . ." Id. at 233. The fact that the district court reduced Thompson's sentence for substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) (2006) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 is irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706. Hood, 556 F.3d at 234. Accordingly, we deny Thompson's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials would 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?