US v. Thomas Dean, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00854-RBH-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000174805]. Mailed to: Thomas Dean, Jr.. [17-6754]

Appeal: 17-6754

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6754

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS DEAN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00854-RBH-4)

Submitted: October 10, 2017

Decided: October 17, 2017

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Dean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6754

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Dean, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for
a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to
the Sentencing Guidelines. “We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence
under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal
authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th
Cir. 2016). Because the Government did not oppose Dean’s motion as successive, the
district court erred in determining that it lacked authority to consider Dean’s motion.
United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, No. 17-142, 2017
WL 3219499 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017). However, we conclude that Dean is not entitled to
relief because he was sentenced as a career offender, and the career offender Guideline
was not impacted by Amendment 782. See United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th
Cir. 2017) (recognizing that we may affirm a district court’s order “on any grounds
apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, No. 17-5559,
2017 WL 3480672 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2