Case ID: f-appx_313/html/0598-01.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. Russell Antoyne HOLT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-6901.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 26, 2009.
    Decided: March 4, 2009.
    Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Russell Antoyne Holt appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Holt asserts on appeal that the district court erred in declining to sentence him below the amended Guidelines range for crack cocaine sentences, contending that a lower sentence would be permitted by Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). However, this argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the low end of the amended Guidelines range. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. We deny Holt’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.