Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0173-01.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. Thomas DEAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6754
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 10, 2017
    Decided: October 17, 2017
    Thomas Dean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Dean, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to ISU.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. “We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). Because the Government did not oppose Dean’s motion as successive, the district court erred in determining that it lacked authority to consider Dean’s motion. United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, No. 17-142, — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2017 WL 3219499 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017). However, we conclude that Dean is not entitled to relief because he was sentenced as a career offender, and the career offender Guideline was not impacted by Amendment 782. See United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that we may affirm a district court’s order “on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, No. 17-5559, — U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2017 WL 3480672 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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