United States v. Tommy Bennett, Jr. , 516 F. App'x 248 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7754
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOMMY LEWIS BENNETT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00369-NCT-2)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tommy Lewis Bennett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina; Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Lewis Bennett, Jr., 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 the district court’s decision
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). Because Bennett’s sentence was not based on a
Guidelines provision that was subsequently amended, Bennett is
ineligible for a reduction via § 3582(c)(2). See id. 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).”) (citing United
States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235–36 (4th Cir. 2009)).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Bennett, No. 1:08-cr-00369-NCT-2
(M.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2012). We deny Bennett’s motions for
appointment of counsel and provision of transcripts.
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 the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2