Case ID: f-appx_464/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gary WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-3910-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 20, 2012.
    Gary Williams, Folkston, GA, pro se.
    Richard M. Tucker, Susan Corkery, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge.
    
      
       Judge Mark R. Kravitz, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Gary Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) and Amendment 484 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Williams has abandoned his claim based on Amendment 489. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995) (claim not raised in appellate brief is deemed abandoned). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s determination as to whether the defendant’s sentence was based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir.2009). Section 3582 provides that a district court may reduce a term of imprisonment “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Upon review, we conclude that Williams’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its order. See United States v. Williams, No. 96-cr-938, Docket Entry No. 128 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2010).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.