Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0333-01.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 Lewis GLENN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-7496.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 27, 2010.
    Decided: May 11, 2010.
    Anthony Lewis Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Lewis Glenn appeals from the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based upon the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Glenn asserts that, given the changes in law since he was originally sentenced, the court should have recalculated his Guidelines range without certain enhancements. However, “proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant.... Rather, § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 are narrow provisions that allow a limited reduction of sentence by the amount specified in an amendment, while prohibiting a complete reevaluation.” United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2401, 173 L.Ed.2d 1296 (2009). In addition, the district court may only consider the effect of the retroactive amendment, not any other sentencing or Guidelines issues. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s., comment, (n. 2) (2009). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Glenn’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.