Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bricelyn Marcel RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-15
Citations: 322 F. App'x 346
Docket Number: No. 08-7026
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bricelyn Marcel RUSSELL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 346–347

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bricelyn Marcel RUSSELL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7026.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2009.
Decided: April 15, 2009.
Bricelyn Marcel Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bricelyn Marcel Russell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). Russell was originally sentenced at the bottom of his guideline range to 360 months in prison. The district court subsequently granted the Government's motions under Fed. R.Crim.P. 35(b) and reduced Russell's sen tence to 180 months. In denying Russell's § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court determined that his amended guideline range under the crack cocaine amendments was 292 to 365 months' imprisonment; noted the court had already reduced his sentence to 180 months; and denied his motion for a further reduction.
On appeal, Russell challenges the district court's reasoning for denying his motion. Because we conclude that the district court lacked authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Russell's term of imprisonment to a term that was less than the bottom of the amended guideline range, we affirm. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 250, 252 (4th Cir.2009). 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.