Case ID: f-appx_299/html/0269-01.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. Andre MANIGAULT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-6832.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 21, 2008.
    Decided: Oct. 27, 2008.
    Andre Manigault, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Andre Manigault appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Manigault, No. 3:95-cr00488-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2008). 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. 
      
       We note a typographical error in the district court’s order on page one in the recitation of Manigault’s advisory guideline calculation. The district court intended to state that Manigault’s base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was 38, not 3, for his violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). This typographical error does not affect, however, the district court’s considered reasoning in denying Manigault’s motion for sentence reduction.