United States v. Tillman

ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES TILLMAN,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 09-8190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMERSON DEVOIR TILLMAN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:00-cr-00137-AW-2; 8:00-cr-00137-AW-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: October 19, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Tillman and Jamerson Devoir Tillman, Appellants Pro Se.
Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
James Tillman and Jamerson Devoir Tillman appeal from
the district court’s orders granting their 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006) motions and reducing their sentences. They
argue on appeal that they should receive a full resentencing in
light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), applying
the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory and allowing them to
challenge the leadership role enhancements they received. The
Tillmans’ contention that they are eligible for sentencing anew
is without merit. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683,
2690 (2010) (“By its terms, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a
sentencing or resentencing proceeding,” it merely provides for
modification of the term of imprisonment.); United States v.
Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S.
Ct. 2401 (2009).
The Tillmans also challenge the district court’s
jurisdiction over their criminal proceedings, the propriety of
the sentencing enhancement they received, and the effectiveness
of their attorneys in advising them regarding the enhancement
and failing to object to the enhancement. The district court
properly exercised jurisdiction over the Tillmans’ violation of
federal law. The Tillmans’ challenges to their sentences and to
the effectiveness of counsel are not properly asserted in the
context of a § 3582(c) motion.
3
We have reviewed the records in these cases and find
no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders. 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
4