Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert THOMAS, also known as Brooklyn, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-09
Citations: 391 F. App'x 981
Docket Number: No. 09-3388-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert THOMAS, also known as Brooklyn, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, WILLIAM K. SESSIONS, III, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 981–982

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert THOMAS, also known as Brooklyn, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-3388-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 9, 2010.
William T. Koch, Jr., Lyme, CT, for Appellant.
Patrick F. Caruso, Assistant United States Attorney (Sandra S. Glover, of counsel), for David B. Fein, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
PRESENT: JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, WILLIAM K. SESSIONS, III, District Judge.
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Thomas, who was sentenced to 180 months in prison as a career offender following his conviction for distribution of crack cocaine, moved for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court declined to grant the reduction, and denied Thomas's further request for a "full resentenc-ing," at which he sought to revisit his designation as a career offender.
Thomas does not challenge the district court's discretionary denial of a sentence reduction. He does, however, appeal the district court's ruling that U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(l) precludes a plenary resen-tencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Thomas's brief essentially conceded that the district court's ruling was correct under our decision in United States v. Savoy, 567 F.3d 71 (2d Cir.2009), but argued that Savoy might be overruled by the Supreme Court in a then-pending case, Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
After the instant case was fully briefed, however, the Supreme Court decided Dillon, and agreed with our conclusion in Savoy. Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 2693. We have since applied the rule of Dillon to a claim essentially identical to Thomas's. See United States v. Mock, 612 F.3d 133, 134-35 (2d Cir.2010). As Dillon and Mock are dispositive of Thomas's sole argument on appeal, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.