Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06494/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06494-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James L. Pettus
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES L. PETTUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:07-cr-00009-HEH-1)

Submitted: June 15, 2010 Decided: July 13, 2010

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James L. Pettus, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6494 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/13/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James L. Pettus appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to alter or amend a judgment. We affirm.

Pettus’s motion to alter or amend was filed in 

response to the district court’s partial grant of his motion for 

a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2006). The district court awarded Pettus a two-level reduction 

in his total offense level pursuant to Amendment 706 of the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual and reduced Pettus’s 

sentence from 180 months imprisonment to 154 months. Pettus 

claimed in his motion to alter or amend that he should have been 

sentenced at the low end of the revised Guidelines range. On 

appeal, he argues that he was entitled to a full resentencing 

under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 245 (2007). 

In United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 

(4th Cir. 2010), we concluded that a district court is without 

jurisdiction to entertain a motion to alter or amend a judgment 

granting or denying relief on a § 3582(c) motion unless the 

motion to alter or amend was made to correct “an arithmetical, 

technical, or other clear error.” Because Pettus challenges the 

merits of the district court’s decision in his motion to alter 

Appeal: 10-6494 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/13/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

or amend, we conclude that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to hear the motion.*

We therefore affirm the judgment 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

 * Our decision to affirm is also supported by the Supreme 

Court’s recent holding that the remedial aspect of Booker does 

not make the Sentencing Guidelines advisory in a § 3582(c) 

proceeding. Dillon v. United States, 2010 WL 2400109 (U.S. June 

17, 2010) (No. 09-6338); see also United States v. Dunphy, 551 

F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 

(2009) (holding same). 

Appeal: 10-6494 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/13/2010 Pg: 3 of 3