US v. Carlos Wood


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999989909-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999981544-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999968717-2] Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000016608]. Mailed to: C Woods. [16-7550]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7550 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7550 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS WOODS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7550 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Carlos Woods appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Although Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered offense levels applicable to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d), p.s. (2016); USSG app. C, amend. 782, Woods was determined to be a career offender under the Guidelines, and his status as a career offender is not affected by Amendment 782. Because Amendment 782 “does not have the effect of lowering [Woods’] applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline n.1(A), or he statutory was § 3582(c)(2). not provision,” entitled to USSG a § 1B1.10, sentence p.s., reduction cmt. under The district court thus did not reversibly err in denying Woods’ motion. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010), abrogation on other grounds recognized in United States v. Muldrow, ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 15-7298, 15-7608, 2016 WL 7441620, at **3-6 (4th Cir. Dec. 27, 2016). Accordingly, supplemental court’s although informal denial opening order. 1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1 we (D. Md. grant brief, United Oct. 2 21, Woods’ we motion affirm States 2016). v. We to the file a district Woods, deny No. Woods’ Appeal: 16-7550 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 motions to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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?