Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06004/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Patrice Behanzin Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PATRICE BEHANZIN WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior 

District Judge. (7:96-cr-00034-BR-1)

Submitted: July 12, 2010 Decided: July 21, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrice Behanzin Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6004 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/21/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrice Behanzin Wilson appeals the district court’s 

order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and 

reducing his sentence from 360 months’ to 324 months’ 

imprisonment based on a two-level reduction, and a subsequent

order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Wilson, No. 7:96-cr-00034-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. filed Oct. 14, 2009 & 

entered Oct. 15, 2009; Dec. 9, 2009); see also Dillon v. United 

States, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2010 WL 2400109 at *8-*9 (June 17, 2010) 

(No. 09-6338) (clarifying that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a 

resentencing, rather permits a sentence reduction within the 

narrow bounds established by the Commission, and concluding that 

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S 220 (2005), does not apply to 

§ 3582(c)(2) proceedings). 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: 10-6004 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/21/2010 Pg: 2 of 2