United States v. Crum , 279 F. App'x 194 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6721
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH A. CRUM, a/k/a Unique,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(1:94-cr-00384-BEL)
Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 3, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph A. Crum, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs Armentrout,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph A. Crum appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. United States v. Crum, No. 1:94-cr-00384-BEL
(D. Md. May 2, 2007). This decision is without prejudice to Crum’s
right to seek resentencing pursuant to Amendment 706 to the
sentencing guidelines, which lowered the base offense level for
drug offenses involving crack cocaine. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2D1.1 (2007); USSG App. C. Amend. 706.
We have recently held that it is for the district court to first
assess whether and to what extent a criminal defendant’s sentence
may be affected by Amendment 706, either sua sponte or by motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). United States v. Brewer, ___
F.3d ___, 2008 WL 733395 (4th Cir. Mar. 20, 2008). We deny Crum’s
motion for appointment of counsel and 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
- 2 -