Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tarrant COUNTS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-18
Citations: 500 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 12-7266
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tarrant COUNTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 500
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tarrant COUNTS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7266.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.
Tarrant Counts, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tarrant Counts appeals the district court's order granting his motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). This court reviews the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010).
Although the core of Counts' assertions on appeal takes issue with the district court's failure to reduce his sentence to the full extent that Counts requested, Counts misapprehends the application of the Guidelines to his case. Although Counts was designated a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG") § 4B1.1 at his original sentencing, Counts' initial sentence was based on the crack Guidelines provisions in USSG § 2D1.1 because the § 2D1.1 provisions resulted in a higher offense level than the § 4B1.1(b) provisions. See USSG § 4B1.1(b) (providing that the offense level calculated under the career offender guidelines applies only if it is "greater than the offense level otherwise applicable").
Amendment 750, however, reduced Counts' offense level as calculated under the crack guidelines to a level that is lower than his offense level as calculated under the career offender guidelines. Compare USSG § 201.1(c)(3) & (b)(1) with USSG § 4B1.1(b)(1). As a result, the career offender guidelines now control. See USSG § 4B1.1(b).
Under the Guidelines provisions now applicable to Counts, the district court gave Counts the greatest possible deduction that he could have received. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to reduce Counts' sentence to a degree larger than the Guidelines permit. See also Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-92, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (court may not revisit any Guidelines application decisions other than those affected by the applicable amendment); United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir.2010) (same).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.
. Although the district court granted Counts' motion, the reduction granted by the court did not reduce Counts' sentence to the full extent that he had requested.
. To the extent that Counts claims that the counsel who moved for § 3582(c)(2) relief on his behalf deprived him of effective assistance of counsel, we decline to reach Counts' claim because the record does not conclusively show any such ineffectiveness. See United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.2006).