Case ID: f-appx_332/html/0086-01.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. Hayward Jerome NICHOLS, a/k/a Boobie, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-6408.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 5, 2009.
    Decided: Aug. 24, 2009.
    Reita P. Pendry, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hayward Jerome Nichols appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), in which he sought the benefit of Amendment 706 of the sentencing guidelines. The record reflects that, at sentencing, the district court granted the Government’s motion for downward departure based on Nichol’s substantial assistance. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2000). The court sentenced Nichols to 210 months in prison— well below the mandatory life sentence to which he was subject and below his advisory Guidelines range of 292-365 months.

We recently held that “in reducing a sentence under ... § 5K1.1, the sentencing court does not apply a Guidelines sentencing range.” United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235 (4th Cir.2009). Therefore, Nichols was not “sentenced based on a sentencing range that has ... been lowered,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and his sentence is not subject to further reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See id.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. We 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.