UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALOHONDRA REY STATON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00054-H-1)

Submitted: May 31, 2013 Decided: June 11, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alohondra Rey Staton appeals from the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction 

of sentence. The district court denied the motion, finding that 

Staton’s Guidelines range was based upon his career offender 

status and, thus, was unchanged by any Guidelines amendments 

regarding drug quantity. On appeal, Staton avers that, 

following our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 

(4th Cir. 2011), he should no longer be sentenced as a career 

offender. We affirm.

A district court may reduce a prison term if the 

defendant’s Guidelines range has subsequently been lowered by 

the Sentencing Commission and the reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A 

reduction “is not consistent with this policy statement and 

therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” if the 

amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s 

applicable guideline range.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (2012). We review a district court’s decision 

under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010).

To determine whether a Guidelines amendment has the 

effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range, 

the district court should follow the direction in U.S. 
3

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1) (2012) to substitute 

the amendment for the corresponding Guidelines provision that 

was applied at the defendant’s sentencing, and leave all other 

Guidelines calculations as they were originally. Stewart, 595 

F.3d at 200-01; United States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 245 (4th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232-34 (4th 

Cir. 2009). Because substitution of the relevant Guidelines 

amendments neither lowered Staton’s Guidelines range nor 

affected his career offender status, the district court 

correctly found that Staton was ineligible for § 3582 relief. 

Thus, even assuming application of Simmons would alter Staton’s 

Guidelines range, relief under Simmons is not available pursuant 

to § 3582.

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