Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aubrey Valdez MOTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-02
Citations: 531 F. App'x 377
Docket Number: No. 13-6291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aubrey Valdez MOTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 377–378

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aubrey Valdez MOTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6291.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2013.
Decided: July 2, 2013.
Aubrey Valdez Moton, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Aubrey Valdez Moton appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Moton argues that United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 192 (4th Cir.2010) authorizes the modification of a career offender's sentence where an overrepresentation departure was granted. However, Moton's sentence is distinguishable from the situation in Munn, because the Guidelines range after the departure did not fall squarely within the crack cocaine Guidelines range. Also, the Sentencing Commission has abrogated the ruling in Munn by defining "applicable guideline range" as "the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category determined . before consideration of any departure provision." U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 759 (2011). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Moton, No. 3:08-cr-00165-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2013). 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.