UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7595
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OSMOND O’NEIL CHRISTIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:97-cr-00002-RBS-1)
Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: February 11, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Osmond O’Neil Christie, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Osmond O’Neil Christie appeals a district court order
denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) seeking a
reduction to his sentence as a result of Amendments 706 and 711
to the Sentencing Guidelines. We find the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States
v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard).
The district court correctly found Christie was not eligible for
relief under the Amendments because it did not result in a
reduced base offense level. * Christie’s claims that he was
entitled to a full resentencing proceeding, application of the
rule from United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and a
sentence below the Guidelines are foreclosed by this court’s
opinion in United States v. Dunphy, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 19139,
*8 (4th Cir. 2009) (In a proceeding under § 3582(c), “a district
judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence below
the amended guideline range.”). Christie’s claim that his
relevant conduct did not include crack cocaine should have been
raised on appeal and is not now reviewable by this court.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
We also note Christie is not eligible for a sentence
reduction under Amendment 715.
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3