Case ID: f-appx_326/html/0238-01.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. Terrance Bradley THOMPSON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-7696.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 28, 2009.
    Decided: June 3, 2009.
    Claire J. Assistant Tanzania Appellant. Asheville, Rauscher, Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal, Federal Public Defender, Asheville, North Carolina; Cannon-Eckerle, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Bradley Thompson appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his amended motion for reconsideration. Thompson argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 201.1(c) (2007 & Supp.2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. As we recently observed, “Amendment 706 ... amended § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels.” United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir.2009). “Because [Thompson’s] 240-month Guidelines sentence was based on a statutory minimum and USSG § 5Gl.l(b), it was not based on a sentencing range lowered by Amendment 706 ....” Id. at 233. The fact that the district court reduced Thompson’s sentence for substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 is irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706. Hood, 556 F.3d at 234. Accordingly, we deny Thompson’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the decision of the district court. 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.