Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice Lavonta WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-21
Citations: 474 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 12-6142
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maurice Lavonta WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 226–226

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maurice Lavonta WILLIAMS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 12-6142.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2012.
Decided: June 21, 2012.
Maurice Lavonta Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Lavonta Williams appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Williams was not eligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines did not lower the Guidelines range established in a prior § 3582 proceeding. With regard to Williams' claim on appeal that the district court should have permitted him to file a formal § 3582 motion, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its wide discretion in issues of case management. Cf. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 192 (4th Cir.2007). Finally, to the extent Williams reasserts the remaining arguments he raised in the district court, those arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 252-57 (4th Cir.2009), and Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-93, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying relief under § 3582(c)(2). 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.