Case ID: f-appx_467/html/0176-01.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. Ronald Eugene RICE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-7578.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 16, 2012.
    Decided: Feb. 23, 2012.
    Ronald Eugene Rice, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Ronald Rice appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2010). Because Amendment 750 did not have the effect of lowering Rice’s applicable Guidelines range, we affirm the district court’s orders. See USSG § lB1.10(a)(2)(B). 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. 
      
       Although Rice designated only one order in his notice of appeal, we may consider the denial of both orders, as his intent is clear and the Government is not prejudiced by his omission. See Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir.2005).