UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LONNIE LAMONT DOZIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:03-cr-00372-TLW-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 17, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Mackenzie, BARRETT-MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lonnie Lamont Dozier appeals the district court’s 

grant in part of the government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion 

to reduce his sentence for substantial assistance. Appellate 

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court’s chosen method 

of reducing the sentence constituted a violation of law or an 

incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines. Dozier was 

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but 

has not filed a brief. For the reasons explained below, we 

affirm the amended judgment.

“[A]ppeals from rulings on Rule 35(b) motions are 

governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 [(2006)].” United States v. 

Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing United 

States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147, 149 (4th Cir. 1995)). This 

court does not have “jurisdiction to review the extent of the 

district court’s downward departure, except in instances in 

which the departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in 

violation of law or resulted from an incorrect application of 

the Guidelines.” United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 

(4th Cir. 1995). 

If a defendant alleges that his otherwise final 

sentence was imposed in violation of law, however, he “may make 

that claim in appealing a ruling on a Rule 35(b) motion.” 
3

Hartwell, 448 F.3d at 713. Such a claim is reviewed for abuse 

of discretion. See Pridgen, 64 F.3d at 150. 

In the Anders brief, appellate counsel states that 

Dozier takes the position that the district court’s refusal to 

structure the reduction by reducing the offense level “resulted 

in a sentence imposed in violation of law and/or resulted from 

an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.” This 

claim is one that we have jurisdiction to review. However,

because Dozier did not preserve this claim for appeal, it is 

reviewed for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 

732-37 (1993).

We conclude that the district court did not plainly 

err in choosing to reduce Dozier’s total sentence by months 

rather than by reducing the offense level and imposing sentence 

within a revised guideline range. Therefore, the court did not 

abuse its discretion by reducing Dozier’s sentence in this 

manner. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying his motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the 

district court. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 

entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. 

This court requires that counsel inform Dozier, in writing, of 

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Dozier requests that a petition be filed, 
4

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Dozier. 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