Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antione BOYCE, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-04
Citations: 684 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 17-6051
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antione BOYCE, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antione BOYCE, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6051
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 4, 2017
Antione Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antione Boyce appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Although Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered offense levels applicable to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § lB1.10(d), p.s. (2016); USSG app. C, amend. 782, it "does not have the effect of lowering [Boyce's] applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision." USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.l(A). Accordingly, Boyce was not entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court thus did not reversibly err in denying Boyce's motion. See USSG § lB1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010), abrogation on other grounds recognized in United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 438-42 (4th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial order. United States v. Boyce, No. 1:07-cr-00383-CCB-3 (D. Md. Dec. 13,2016). 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