US v. Carl Bennett

Filing 920090604

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8551

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL EDWARD BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (0:07-cv-70021-JFA; 0:04-cr-00657-JFA-2)

Submitted:

May 28, 2009

Decided:

June 4, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Edward Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Carl Edward Bennett seeks to appeal the district

court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 28 U.S.C. standard find the that § 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). A that the or

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bennett has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the we deny a We

certificate

appealability

appeal.

To the extent Bennett also seeks to appeal from the district court's order, lowering his sentence from 360 months of imprisonment to 292 months under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), we note that he is entitled to no other relief. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting that when a sentence is within the Sentencing Guidelines applicable at the time of the original sentencing, a district court is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce a defendant's sentence below the amended sentencing range).

2

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.

DISMISSED

3