Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond STERN, a/k/a Cuz, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-01
Citations: 691 F. App'x 105
Docket Number: No. 17-6010
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond STERN, a/k/a Cuz, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 105–105

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond STERN, a/k/a Cuz, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6010
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 9, 2017
Decided: June 1, 2017
Raymond Stern, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Stern appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We review a district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, and a district court's ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Here, the district court correctly concluded that Stern was not eligible for a sentence reduction. Because Stern was sentenced pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that specified the offense level but not the criminal history category or the advisory Guidelines range, and did not link the sentence to any particular Guidelines range, his sentence was based on the plea agreement and not a Guidelines range. See United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2017). We therefore affirm the district court's order. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED