United States v. Raymond Stern , 691 F. App'x 105 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND STERN, a/k/a Cuz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00439-JKB-1)
Submitted: May 9, 2017 Decided: June 1, 2017
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Stern, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Stern appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We review a district court’s decision whether to
reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, and a district court’s ruling
as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Mann,
709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Here, the district court correctly concluded that Stern
was not eligible for a sentence reduction. Because Stern was sentenced pursuant to a Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that specified the offense level but not the criminal
history category or the advisory Guidelines range, and did not link the sentence to any
particular Guidelines range, his sentence was based on the plea agreement and not a
Guidelines range. See United States v. May, ___ F.3d ___. No. 15-7912, 2017 WL
1479288 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2017). We therefore 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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2