Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0282-01.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. William David WILSON, a/k/a Pudgie, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-8087.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 25, 2010.
    Decided: May 5, 2010.
    William David Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
    
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William David Wilson appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We affirm.

The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines and the amendments are reviewed de novo. Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d 481, 483-84 (4th Cir.1995). This court reviews the denial of a motion for a reduction in the sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004).

Our review of the sentencing transcript shows that the district court did not err when it denied Wilson’s § 3582(c) motion on the basis that he was held accountable for 11.7 kilograms of crack cocaine. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.