United States v. Pabellon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6363
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SONJI PRINCE PABELLON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:98-cr-01169-HMH-2)
Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 30, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sonji Prince Pabellon, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III,
Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sonji Prince Pabellon appeals the district court’s order
granting in part her motion for reduction of sentence and reducing
her sentence from 121 months to 120 months. Pursuant to Amendment
706 to the Guidelines, which decreases by two levels the base
offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, the district court
reduced Pabellon’s previous offense level from 32 to 30. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1 (2007) (Amendment
706); USSG § 1B1.10(c) (Mar. 3, 2008); United States v. Brewer, 520
F.3d 367, 373 (4th Cir. 2008). In light of her criminal history
category of I, Pabellon claims that she faced a potential
sentencing range of 97 to 121 months under the Guidelines.
Pabellon notes that her previously imposed sentence of
121 months was at the bottom of the guideline range and therefore
contends that the district court should have reduced her sentence
to the bottom of the revised range, or to 97 months. We find this
argument to be without merit. As set forth in the district court’s
order, Pabellon’s amended guideline range was actually 120 to 121
months in light of the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence
applicable to her offense. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West
1999 & Supp. 2007). Despite Pabellon’s arguments to the contrary,
the district court lacked authority to sentence her below the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence as she requested. See United
States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2006).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and the
resulting 120-month sentence. 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
- 3 -