US v. Carlos Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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