Case ID: f-appx_313/html/0597-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Paul HAYMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-6902.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 26, 2009.
    Decided: March 4, 2009.
    Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Paul Haymond appeals from the district court’s order granting a two-level sentence reduction and denying a further sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e) (2006). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Haymond, No. 3:05-cr-00013-JPB-S (N.D.W.Va., May 28, 2008). We note Haymond was not entitled to a resentencing hearing- or a sentence below the amended guideline range. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.2009) (“When a sentence is within the guidelines applicable at the time of the original sentencing, in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e) resentencing hearing, a district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”). We deny Haymond’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED