Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. T.B. MOSS, Jr., a/k/a T.M. Moss, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-28
Citations: 385 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 10-6316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. T.B. MOSS, Jr., a/k/a T.M. Moss, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 385
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. T.B. MOSS, Jr., a/k/a T.M. Moss, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6316.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 17, 2010.
Decided: June 28, 2010.
T.B. Moss, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
T.B. Moss, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion based on Amendment 709 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order, noting that Amendment 709 has not been made retroactively applicable and therefore was not available for relief. Amendment 709 did not become effective until November 1, 2007, and does not apply retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c) (Amendment 709 is not listed); see also United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n. 2 (4th Cir.) (noting that an amendment to the Guidelines may be applied retroactively only when the amendment is expressly listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c)), 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.