United States v. Louis Bryant

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6920
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS ANTONIO BRYANT, a/k/a Tinio, a/k/a Black, a/k/a B
Stacks,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00047-NKM-1)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis Antonio Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Heather Lynn Carlton,
Nancy Spodick Healey, Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Antonio Bryant appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment
782. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A district court is authorized to reduce a defendant’s
sentence under § 3582(c)(2) only if the defendant’s sentence was
“based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered
by the Sentencing Commission” through a retroactively applicable
Guidelines amendment. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1). As the court
determined at sentencing, Bryant’s mandatory minimum sentence
was life imprisonment. Amendment 782 did not lower Bryant’s
mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Black, 737
F.3d 280, 286-87 (4th Cir. 2013). Because Bryant is ineligible
for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), we conclude that
the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bryant’s
motion. See United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th
Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
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