Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackie McKUBBIN, a/k/a Jack, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-15
Citations: 383 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 09-7955
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jackie McKUBBIN, a/k/a Jack, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jackie McKUBBIN, a/k/a Jack, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-7955.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 10, 2010.
Decided: June 15, 2010.
Jackie McKubbin, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jackie McKubbin appeals from the district court's orders granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion, reducing his offense level by two levels, reducing his sentence from life imprisonment to 360 months, but denying his motion for reconsideration. McKubbin argues that he should receive a full resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), applying the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory. This claim is without merit. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-53 (4th Cir.2009) (holding that "proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute a full resen-tencing of the defendant"), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2401, 173 L.Ed.2d 1296 (2009). We have reviewed the record in this case and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. 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.