Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Lee JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-22
Citations: 384 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 09-7931
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul Lee JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 231–231

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul Lee JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-7931.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 7, 2010.
Decided: June 22, 2010.
Paul Lee Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Lee Jackson appeals from the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence and imposing an amended sentence in the middle of the reduced Sentencing Guidelines range. Jackson appeals, arguing that the court should have considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and reduced his sentence further. We have reviewed the record in this case and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jackson, No. 3:02-cr-00035-FPS-JES-2 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 7, 2009). In addition, we note that Jackson's claims on appeal are barred by our decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 2401, 173 L.Ed.2d 1296 (2009) (finding jurisdictional bar to reducing prison term below the amended Guidelines range). 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.