Case ID: f-appx_326/html/0157-01.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 Joe WILLIAMSON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-8557.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 28, 2009.
    Decided: June 4, 2009.
    Anthony Joe Williamson, Appellant Pro Se.
    
      Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Joe Williamson appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Williamson asserts on appeal that the district court erred in declining to sentence him below the amended Guidelines range for crack cocaine offenses, contending that a lower sentence would be permitted by Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). However, this argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed, 77 U.S.L.W. 3559 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2009) (No. 08-1185). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the low end of the amended Guidelines range. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the order 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.