Case ID: f-appx_600/html/0105-02.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. William HASKINS, a/k/a Julio, a/k/a K.C., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-7742.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 16, 2015.
    Decided: April 20, 2015.
    William Haskins, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Haskins appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the ' U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to grant a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because Has-kins’ Guidelines range was driven by his career offender designation and not the crack cocaine Guidelines provisions. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.2010). To the extent that Haskins challenges the continued viability of that designation, such a claim is not properly pursued in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize full resentencing, but permits sentence reduction only within narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Haskins, No. 1:95-cr-00072-7 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 31, 2012). 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.