Case ID: f-appx_279/html/0243-01.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. Sonji Prince PABELLON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-6363.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 22, 2008.
    Decided: May 30, 2008.
    Sonji Prince Pabellón, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Sonji Prince Pabellón appeals the district court’s order granting in part her motion for reduction of sentence and reducing her sentence from 121 months to 120 months. Pursuant to Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which decreases by two levels the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, the district court reduced Pabellon’s previous offense level from 32 to 30. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1 (2007) (Amendment 706); USSG § lB1.10(c) (Mar. 3, 2008); United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 373 (4th Cir.2008). In light of her criminal history category of I, Pabellón claims that she faced a potential sentencing range of 97 to 121 months under the Guidelines.

Pabellón notes that her previously imposed sentence of 121 months was at the bottom of the guideline range and therefore contends that the district court should have reduced her sentence to the bottom of the revised range, or to 97 months. We find this argument to be without merit. As set forth in the district court’s order, Pabellon’s amended guideline range was actually 120 to 121 months in light of the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence applicable to her offense. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp.2007). Despite Pabellon’s arguments to the contrary, the district court lacked authority to sentence her below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence as she requested. See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-69 (4th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and the resulting 120-month sentence. 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.