Case ID: f-appx_324/html/0244-01.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. Kareem R. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-7037.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 23, 2009.
    Decided: April 29, 2009.
    Kareem R. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kareem R. Thompson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Thompson argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(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). Thompson’s sentence was determined by the career offender guideline, USSG § 4B1.1, and was not based on a sentencing range lowered by the amendment. The fact that the district court reduced Thompson’s sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 is irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706. Id. at 234. Accordingly, we 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.