Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy ROLLE, a/k/a Robert Stan Marks, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-25
Citations: 163 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 05-7554
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy ROLLE, a/k/a Robert Stan Marks, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy ROLLE, a/k/a Robert Stan Marks, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-7554.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2006.
Troy Rolle, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Troy Rolle appeals the district court's oral order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). Rolle sought relief based on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The relief Rolle seeks is unavailable under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 473 (4th Cir.2004) (noting that § 3582(c)(2) au thorizes a "district court to reduce the sentence imposed on a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o)"); see also United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir.2005) (holding that "Booker is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions"). Accordingly, we affirm. 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