Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael Cee-Erwin SOLOMON, a/k/a J, a/k/a Rip, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-01
Citations: 643 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 16-6009
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rafael Cee-Erwin SOLOMON, a/k/a J, a/k/a Rip, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 643
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rafael Cee-Erwin SOLOMON, a/k/a J, a/k/a Rip, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6009.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2016.
Decided: April 1, 2016.
Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). "We review de novo a district court's ruling on the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir.2015). Solomon argues that United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 192 (4th Cir.2010) authorizes the modification of a career offender's sentence where, as in his case, a downward variance was granted. But even if our holding in Munn, which considered an overrepresentation departure, could encompass a downward variance, the Sentencing Commission abrogated Munn by defining "applicable guideline range" as "the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category determined . before consideration of any departure provision . or any variance." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual App. C, Amend. 759 (2011); see USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.n. 1(A). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Solomon, No. 3:11—cr-00203-1 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 25, 2015; Dec. 14, 2015). 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.