Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07550/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07550-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Carlos Woods
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7550

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

CARLOS WOODS, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1) 

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-7550 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Carlos Woods appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction 

of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

Although Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered offense levels 

applicable to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively 

applicable, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d), 

p.s. (2016); USSG app. C, amend. 782, Woods was determined to be 

a career offender under the Guidelines, and his status as a 

career offender is not affected by Amendment 782. Because 

Amendment 782 “does not have the effect of lowering [Woods’] 

applicable guideline range because of the operation of another 

guideline or statutory provision,” USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. 

n.1(A), he was not entitled to a sentence reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2). The district court thus did not reversibly err in 

denying Woods’ motion. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; United 

States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010), abrogation on 

other grounds recognized in United States v. Muldrow, ___ F.3d 

___, Nos. 15-7298, 15-7608, 2016 WL 7441620, at **3-6 (4th Cir. 

Dec. 27, 2016). 

Accordingly, although we grant Woods’ motion to file a 

supplemental informal opening brief, we affirm the district 

court’s denial order. United States v. Woods, No. 

1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1 (D. Md. Oct. 21, 2016). We deny Woods’ 

Appeal: 16-7550 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

motions to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government 

expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-7550 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 3 of 3