Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corylee J. WHITAKER, a/k/a Corylee Jamaal Whitaker, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-24
Citations: 481 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 12-6371
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corylee J. WHITAKER, a/k/a Corylee Jamaal Whitaker, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corylee J. WHITAKER, a/k/a Corylee Jamaal Whitaker, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-6371.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 12, 2012.
Decided: Sept. 24, 2012.
Corylee J. Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corylee J. Whitaker appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. We review a district court's decision on whether to reduce a sentence for abuse of discretion; however, "[w]e review de novo . a court's conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010).
Section 3582(c)(2) provides Whitaker no relief because he was not sentenced "based on a sentencing range" that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Rather, as the district court properly found, he was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Whitaker's sentence is therefore not subject to reduction via § 3582(c)(2). See Munn, 595 F.3d at 187 ("[A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2)."); United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir.2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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.