Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachary LIVERMAN, a/k/a Zack, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-25
Citations: 476 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 11-7611
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachary LIVERMAN, a/k/a Zack, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 289–289

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachary LIVERMAN, a/k/a Zack, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7611.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2012.
Decided: April 25, 2012.
Zachary Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Zachary Liverman appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) (2006) motion. The district court may reduce a sentence under § 3582(e)(2) "if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A reduction "is not consistent with [the Commission's] policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)" if the amendment "does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range." U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B) (2011). The district court correctly determined that it lacked authority to reduce Liverman's sentence under Amendment 750 and § 3582(c)(2), because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering his Guidelines range. Under the new Guidelines, a level thirty-six applies to cocaine base quantities of between 2.8 kilograms and less than 8.4 kilograms. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3) (2011).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. United States v. Liverman, No. 2:95-cr-00151-FBS-8 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 10, & entered Nov. 14, 2011). 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.