Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07066/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd Antonio Foster
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TODD ANTONIO FOSTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:93-cr-00402-CMH)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Antonio Foster, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7066 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/07/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
1In deciding whether to grant a motion to reduce sentence

based upon a guideline amendment, a district court must consider

the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.

2007) “to the extent that they are applicable” and must determine

whether “reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements

issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In

Legree, we held the district court’s consideration of these factors

was implicit, absent contrary indications. 205 F.3d at 728-29. As

in Legree, the district court presided over Foster’s trial and

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

For a second time, Todd Antonio Foster appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion filed under 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3582 (West 2005). We vacated the district court’s first order

and remanded for further proceedings. See United States v. Foster,

177 F. App’x 374 (4th Cir. 2006) (unpublished).

On remand, the Government filed a response to Foster’s

§ 3582(c)(2) motion averring Foster’s sentencing guidelines

calculations would not change even if Foster were afforded the

benefit of Amendment 505. The district court denied Foster’s

motion a second time, again by a brief written order indicating

Foster’s life sentence was proper. Foster timely appealed.

Foster asserts the district court failed to follow our

instructions on remand. The record, as supplemented by the

Government’s response to the § 3582(c)(2) motion, however, made

clear a reduction in Foster’s sentence was not warranted. Although

the district court again briefly denied Foster’s motion, we find no

abuse of discretion pursuant to United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d

724 (4th Cir. 2000).1

Appeal: 07-7066 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/07/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
sentencing and thus possessed an “intimate familiarity” with

Foster’s case. See id. at 729. Furthermore, we may affirm the

district court’s order for any reason supported by the record. See

United States v. Swann, 149 F.3d 271, 277 (4th Cir. 1998).

2

To the extent Foster’s argument pursuant to United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is properly before the court, we find

no reason to disagree with our sister circuits that have held

Booker does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) motions. See United States

v. Rodriguez-Pena, 470 F.3d 431, 433 (1st Cir. 2006); United States

v. Price, 438 F.3d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2365 (2006); United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th

Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1050 (2006).

- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s June 26, 2007

order denying Foster’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.2 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

Appeal: 07-7066 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/07/2007 Pg: 3 of 3