United States v. Wyaketta Welch , 684 F. App'x 285 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7670
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WYAKETTA LATOYA WELCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00064-RBS-TEM-2)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wyaketta Latoya Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Alyssa Kate Nichol,
Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wyaketta Latoya Welch appeals the district court’s order
denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437
(4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard). Under § 3582(c)(2), the
district court may modify the term of imprisonment “of a
defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is
listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.10(a)(1), (d), p.s. (2016). Guidelines § 1B1.10(d), p.s.,
lists the amendments that receive retroactive application, and
this list does not include Amendment 794. The district court
therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Welch the
relief she sought under Amendment 794. See United States v.
Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v.
McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004).
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2