Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Hendricks J. RINGLING, a/k/a Michael Hendricks Jaysen, a/k/a John Kasell, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-28
Citations: 325 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 09-6082
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Hendricks J. RINGLING, a/k/a Michael Hendricks Jaysen, a/k/a John Kasell, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Hendricks J. RINGLING, a/k/a Michael Hendricks Jaysen, a/k/a John Kasell, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6082.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2009.
Decided: May 28, 2009.
Michael Hendricks J. Ringling, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Hendricks J. Ringling appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). Ringling contends that he was entitled to the reduction under Amendment 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG"), which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base. See USSG § 2Dl.l(c) (2007 & Supp.2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. Because Ringling was sentenced on the basis of his status as a career offender and not on the basis of the drug quantity attributed to him, wé find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ringling's motion. See United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir.2008).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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.