Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Antonio BRYANT, a/k/a Tinio, a/k/a Black, a/k/a B Stacks, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-15
Citations: 657 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 16-6920
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Antonio BRYANT, a/k/a Tinio, a/k/a Black, a/k/a B Stacks, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 657
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Antonio BRYANT, a/k/a Tinio, a/k/a Black, a/k/a B Stacks, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6920
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 13, 2016
Decided: September 15, 2016
Louis Antonio Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Heather Lynn Carlton, Nancy Spodick Healey, Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Antonio Bryant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A district court is' authorized to reduce a defendant's sentence under § 3582(c)(2) only if the defendant's sentence was "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission" through a retroactively applicable Guidelines amendment. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § lB1.10(a)(l). As the court determined at sentencing, Bryant's mandatory minimum sentence was life imprisonment. Amendment 782 did not lower Bryant's mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 286-87 (4th Cir. 2013). Because Bryant is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bryant's motion. See United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED