United States v. Efram Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7042
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EFRAM ZIMBALIST JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00098-AWA-FBS-3)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Efram Zimbalist Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Efram Zimbalist Jones appeals the district court order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence
reduction under Guidelines Amendment 750. On appeal, Jones
primarily challenges his classification as a career offender.
However, Jones may not use his § 3582(c)(2) to challenge
Guidelines calculations made at his original sentencing that are
unaffected by Amendment 750. See Dillon v. United States, 130
S. Ct. 2683, 2690-92 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) does
not authorize full resentencing, but permits sentence reduction
only within narrow bounds established by Sentencing Commission);
United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010)
(recognizing that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is “not considered a
full resentencing by the court”). Because Jones’ Guidelines
range was driven by his career offender designation and not the
crack cocaine Guidelines provisions, the district court properly
concluded that it lacked authority to grant a sentence reduction
under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183,
187 (4th Cir. 2010).
Insofar as Jones also fairly argues that the district
court did not adequately explain its reasons for denying the
motion, we conclude his argument is without merit. The court
provided a written, albeit sealed, statement of reasons for
denying the motion, which recognized that Jones’ career offender
2
status precluded a sentence reduction under Amendment 750.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
3