Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrice Behanzin WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-21
Citations: 388 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 10-6004
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrice Behanzin WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 341–341

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrice Behanzin WILSON, a/k/a K-Mel, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-6004.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 12, 2010.
Decided: July 21, 2010.
Patrice Behanzin Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrice Behanzin Wilson appeals the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and reducing his sentence from 360 months' to 324 months' imprisonment based on a two-level reduction, and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Wilson, No. 7:96-cr-00034-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. filed Oct. 14, 2009 & entered Oct. 15, 2009; Dec. 9, 2009); see also Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692-95, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (clarifying that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing, rather permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Commission, and concluding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings). 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.