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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: C Woods. [16-7550]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
January 31, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
Amendment 782 “does not have the effect of lowering [Woods’]
applicable guideline range because of the operation of another
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).
Pg: 3 of 3
motions to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government
expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
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?