Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0259-01.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. Anthony WILKINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-6464.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 27, 2010.
    Decided: Aug. 6, 2010.
    Anthony Wilkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Wilkins, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion in which he sought to have his sentence reduced beyond the two levels afforded by Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Wilkins’ contention that he is eligible for sentencing anew and application of Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (holding that district courts may consider the crack-to-powder-cocaine guideline sentencing ratio as a possible basis for variance from the guidelines) is without merit. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (“By its terms, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding,” it merely provides for modification of the term of imprisonment.); United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 2401, 173 L.Ed.2d 1296 (2009). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Wilkins, No. 2:07-cr-00149-1 (S.D.W.Va. filed Mar. 4; entered Mar. 5, 2010). 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.