US v. Brian Eddie

Filing 920090827

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6784 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. BRIAN TAFT EDDIE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00004-FDW-3) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Taft Eddie, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian Taft Eddie appeals the district court's order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006). Eddie contends that he was entitled to a reduction under Amendment 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG"), which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses & Supp. involving 2008); cocaine App C. base. Amend. See USSG 2D1.1(c) (2007 was USSG 706. Because Eddie sentenced on the basis of his status as a career offender, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eddie's motion. See United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 889, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny Eddie's motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court's order. United States v. Eddie, We dispense No. 3:01-cr-00004-FDW-3 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 2009). 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 2

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?