UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7086
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAR L. JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (5:03-cr-00964-l)
Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 30, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamar L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamar L. Jones appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Jones argues that the district
court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based upon
Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706.
As we recently observed, “Amendment 706 . . . amended § 2D1.1 of
the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels
associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels.” United
States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009). Jones’s
guideline range, because of a statutory mandatory minimum
sentence, was 120 to 135 months. He was sentenced to 120
months, a sentence later reduced to 108 months for substantial
assistance, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and USSG § 5K1.1.
The district court correctly concluded that, on
account of the statutory mandatory minimum, Amendment 706 “does
not have the effect of lowering” Jones’s guideline range. USSG
1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A). Accordingly, a reduction in Jones’s
sentence is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). Further, the
fact that the district court reduced Jones’s sentence for
substantial assistance is irrelevant to the applicability of
Amendment 706. Hood, 556 F.3d at 234. Accordingly, we affirm
the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral
2
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