Case ID: f-appx_314/html/0620-01.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. Paul Andrew STOKES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-6920.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 26, 2009.
    Decided: March 4, 2009.
    Paul Andrew Stokes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, 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   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Paul Andrew Stokes, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). Stokes argues that the district court erred by not conducting a full resentencing. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Stokes, No. 2:98-cr-00145-HCM-3 (E.D.Va., filed May 14, 2008; entered May 21, 2008); see United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.2009) (“When a sentence is within the guidelines applicable at the time of the original sentencing, in an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) resen-tencing hearing, a district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”). 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.