UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN PAUL SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00064-GMG-7)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: November 3, 2015

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia; 

Michael D. Stein, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Paul Smith appeals the district court’s order denying 

his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2012) based on Amendment 782. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

A district court may reduce a prison term if a 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) (2012). A reduction 

is not consistent with applicable policy statements and 

therefore not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if “an amendment 

listed in [U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d) (2014)] 

does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable

guideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). We review a district 

court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and 

its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority de novo. 

United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013).

In deciding whether to modify a prison term pursuant to a 

retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, the first 

step is to “determine the amended guideline range that would 

have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the 

guidelines listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] had been in effect at 

the time the defendant was sentenced.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1); 

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). “In making 
3

such determination, the court shall substitute only the 

amendments listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] for the corresponding 

guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was 

sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application 

decisions unaffected.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1). Amendments listed 

in USSG § 1B1.10(d) include not only Amendment 782, which 

generally reduced base offense levels in USSG § 2D1.1, but also 

Amendments 657 and 750, which changed the Drug Equivalency 

Tables for oxycodone and cocaine base. See USSG § 1B1.10(d).

At sentencing, the district court adopted the presentence 

report and found Smith responsible for a marijuana equivalency 

of 2,664.92275 kilograms based on 85.55 grams of cocaine base, 

115.2 grams of cocaine hydrochloride, 639.3631 grams of heroin, 

and 583.0393 grams of oxycodone. Under the 2002 Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual, the district court determined that Smith’s 

base offense level was 32, and his total offense level was 34. 

With a criminal history category of V and 20-year statutory 

maximum, his Guidelines range was 235 to 240 months.

Applying the amendments listed in USSG § 1B1.10(d), Smith’s 

Guidelines range has not been lowered. Under Amendment 782, a 

marijuana equivalency of 3,000 to 10,000 kilograms is now a base 

offense level of 32. Applying the Drug Equivalency Tables in 

Amendments 657 and 750, Smith would now be responsible for a 

marijuana equivalency of over 3,000 kilograms based on the drug 
4

quantity findings at sentencing.* Accordingly, the Sentencing 

Commission has not lowered Smith’s Guidelines range, and he is 

not eligible for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

We 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

 * We note that even if the stipulated drug amounts were 

used, rather than the higher drug amounts found by the district 

court at sentencing, the marijuana equivalency would still 

exceed 3,000 kilograms based on the applicable amendments.