US v. William Haskin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:95-cr-00072-7 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999567681].. [14-7742]

Appeal: 14-7742

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7742

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM HASKINS, a/k/a Julio, a/k/a K.C.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (1:95-cr-00072-7)

Submitted:

April 16, 2015

Decided:

April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Haskins, Appellant Pro Se.
Miller A. Bushong, III,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7742

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William

Haskins

appeals

from

the

district

court’s

order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction
of his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual.
The

district

authority
because

We affirm.

to

grant

Haskins’

offender

court
a

properly

sentence

Guidelines

designation

and

concluded

reduction

range

not

was

the

that

under

driven

crack

it

§
by

lacked

3582(c)(2)
his

cocaine

career

Guidelines

provisions.

See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th

Cir. 2010).

To the extent that Haskins challenges the continued

viability

of

that

designation,

such

a

claim

is

not

properly

pursued in a § 3582(c)(2) motion.

See Dillon v. United States,

560

that

U.S.

817

(2010)

(explaining

§

3582(c)(2)

does

not

authorize full resentencing, but permits sentence reduction only
within narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

See

United States v. Haskins, No. 1:95-cr-00072-7 (S.D.W. Va. Aug.
31, 2012).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2