Case ID: f-appx_313/html/0600-01.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. Anthony WILLIAMS, a/k/a Bones, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-6788.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 12, 2009.
    Decided: March 4, 2009.
    Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
   Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Williams appeals a district court order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court applied Amendment 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines to Williams’ total offense level and reduced his sentence. We affirm.

We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Williams’ motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004) (stating standard of review). Insofar as Williams suggests the court could have considered an even lower sentence below the Guidelines sentencing range, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.2009) (“[A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”). We further find no error by the district court denying Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm the order granting Williams a sentence reduction. 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