US v. Carl Dean
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CARL LAMONT DEAN, a/k/a Jermaine Dean, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00046-FDW-3)
October 15, 2009
October 21, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Lamont Dean, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Carl Lamont Dean appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Dean asserts that the district court erred
by failing to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
("USSG") § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008), USSG App C, Amend. 706. "Amendment Guidelines [cocaine 706 . . . amended by reducing quantities the by § 2D1.1 offense two of levels the Sentencing with v.
Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, ___U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Aug. 7, 2009) (No. 09-5868).
Because of the statutorily-mandated minimum sentence to which Dean was subject, his Guidelines' imprisonment range was 240 to 293 months. He was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. On
account of the statutory minimum, Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering Dean's Guidelines range. p.s., cmt. n.1(A). See USSG § 1B1.10,
Accordingly, a reduction in Dean's sentence We therefore affirm the
is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). district court's order.
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 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?