Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Waverly Jermaine JORDAN, a/k/a Waverley Jermaine Jordan, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-24
Citations: 332 F. App'x 91
Docket Number: No. 08-7845
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Waverly Jermaine JORDAN, a/k/a Waverley Jermaine Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 91–91

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Waverly Jermaine JORDAN, a/k/a Waverley Jermaine Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7845.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 24, 2009.
Matthew M. Robinson, Robinson & Brandt, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Waverly Jermaine Jordan appeals the district court's order granting his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the parties' briefs on appeal, the joint appendix,'and the supplemental joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jordan, No. 5:04-cr-00025-gec-bwc (W.D.Va. July 8, 2008); see also United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-53 (4th Cir.) (holding that "proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant" and rejecting appellant's argument that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), should apply in § 3582 proceedings), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 2401, 173 L.Ed.2d 1296 (2009). 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.