Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren KUZON, a/k/a James Brown, a/k/a Shortman, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-05
Citations: 314 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 08-7273
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Warren KUZON, a/k/a James Brown, a/k/a Shortman, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Warren KUZON, a/k/a James Brown, a/k/a Shortman, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7273.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2009.
Decided: March 5, 2009.
Warren Kuzon, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Warren Kuzon appeals the district court's orders granting his motion for re duction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), and summarily denying his motion for reconsideration. Kuzon asserts on appeal that the district court erred in declining to sentence him below the amended Guidelines range for crack cocaine sentences, contending that a lower sentence would be permitted by Gall v. United States,—U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), Kimbrough v. United States,—U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). However, this argument is foreclosed by this court's decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir.2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the high end of the amended Guidelines range. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we affirm the orders 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.