Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0104-01.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. James Elmer GROSS, Jr., a/k/a Man, a/k/a Grip, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7701
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2017
    Decided: June 1, 2017
    James Elmer Gross, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Christine Manuelian, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Elmer Gross, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.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). After reviewing the transcript from Gross’ resentencing hearing, we conclude that the district court attributed to Gross one kilogram of heroin and five kilograms of cocaine and applied six levels of enhancements. See United States v. Gross, 199 Fed.Appx. 219, 241 (4th Cir. 2006). Applying Amendment 782 and the other enhancements used at resen-tencing, Gross’ new Guidelines range is 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts of conviction. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(c)(5), 2E1.1(c)(2), ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table) (2014). Because the district court varied downward and sentenced Gross to 180 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts, Gross is not eligible for a sentencing reduction. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(l), p.s. & cmt. n.1(A).

Accordingly, we deny Gross’ motion to appoint counsel and 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