Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Coury HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-30
Citations: 350 F. App'x 818
Docket Number: No. 08-8505
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Coury HOLMES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 818–819

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Coury HOLMES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8505.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 18, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2009.
James Coury Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Coury Holmes appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). Holmes' motion was based on Amendment 709 to the Sentencing Guidelines, see USSG App. C, Supp., Amend. 709 (revising USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2)). Although the district court erroneously construed Holmes' motion as one seeking relief under Amendment 706, we find the error harmless because Amendment 709 does not apply retroactively and therefore would not authorize a reduction in Holmes' sentence. See USSG § 1B1.10(c); United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n. 2 (4th Cir.2009) (noting that an amendment to the Guidelines may be applied retroac tively only when the amendment is expressly listed in USSG § IB 1.10(c)). 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.