Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny MACK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-17
Citations: 417 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 09-7902
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny MACK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny MACK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7902.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 20, 2011.
Decided: March 17, 2011.
Johnny Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Mack, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court is generally authorized to reduce the term of imprisonment of a defendant who has been sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines under § 3582(c)(2), so long as the amendment has been made retroactively applicable. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 1B1.10, p.s. (2010); see also USSG § lB1.10(c) (stating Amendment 706 applies retroactively). A defendant, however, is ineligible for a sentence reduction "if . the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision." USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A).
The district court began Mack's sentencing hearing by establishing a base offense level of thirty under USSG § 201.1(c)(5). After application of a two-level reduction under Amendment 706, the relevant offense level for Count 1 becomes twenty-eight. See generally United States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 244-46 (4th Cir.) (explaining methodology for applying Amendment 706), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 182, 175 L.Ed.2d 114 (2009). Because this offense level still is greater than the offense level determined under Count 3 (the firearm count), Count 1 controls. With a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the revised grouped offense level is twenty-five, and the amended Guidelines range is 100 to 125 months, making Mack eligible for a sentence reduction.
Because we conclude that Mack is eligible for a sentence reduction, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further consideration under USSG § 1B1.10. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
. Mack pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (Count 1), possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime (Count 2), and possession of a firearm by a felon (Count 3). Counts 1 and 3 were closely related and therefore grouped under the Sentencing Guidelines. See USSG § 3D1.2(c) (explaining when counts should be grouped for "involv[ing] substantially the same harm").
. By this disposition, we indicate no view as to whether the district court should exercise its discretion to reduce Mack's sentence; we simply conclude that the court erred by finding that Mack was not eligible for a sentencing reduction. Indeed, in exercising its discretion, the district court must be mindful that the Guidelines direct that "if the original term of imprisonment constituted a non-guideline sentence determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [ (2006) ] and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), a further reduction generally would not be appropriate.'' USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B).