Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetric HOCKADAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-01
Citations: 330 F. App'x 26
Docket Number: No. 09-6515
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetric HOCKADAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 330
Pages: 26–27

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetric HOCKADAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6515.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2009.
Decided: June 1, 2009.
Demetric Hockaday, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetric Hockaday appeals the district court's order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Hockaday contends that he was entitled to a reduction under Amendment 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG"), which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base. See USSG § 2Dl.l(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C. Amend. 706. Because Hockaday was sentenced on the basis of his status as a career offender, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hockaday's motion. See United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir.2008); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008); United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 889, 889-90 (8th Cir.2008).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying relief. United States v. Hockaday, No. 5:05-cr-00220-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 12, 2009). We also deny Hockaday's motion to appoint coun sel. 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.
Insofar as Hockaday suggests that he was entitled to a full resentencing, his claim is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir.2009) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings "do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2401, 173 L.Ed.2d 1296 (2009).