UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6773
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFRED EUGENE MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:01-cr-00826-HMH-1)
Submitted: April 27, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfred Eugene Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Eugene Mack appeals the district court=s order
denying his motion for modification of sentence. Mack argues
that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence
based on Amendment 706 of the Guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C
Amend. 706, and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
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). Mack’s
sentence was determined by the career offender guideline, USSG
§ 4B1.1, and was not based on a sentencing range lowered by the
amendment. The fact that the district court reduced Mack’s
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and USSG § 5K1.1 is
irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706. Hood, 556
F.3d at 234. Moreover, Mack’s contentions that the court could
have considered a sentence below the amended guidelines range
and that he is entitled to a full resentencing under Booker are
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d
247 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, 77 U.S.L.W. 3559
(U.S. Mar. 20, 2009) (No. 08-1185).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court. We dispense
2
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