UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6487
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT LEE BETHEA, a/k/a Henry Green, a/k/a Champ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (4:00-cr-00066-CMC-2)
Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: August 10, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Lee Bethea, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Lee Bethea appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). Bethea 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 (“USSG”)
§ 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. Amendment
706 lowered only the crack cocaine offense levels in USSG § 2D1.1.
See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009). Thus, the
Amendment did not alter Bethea’s offense level, which was
controlled by USSG § 4B1.1. Further, the fact that the district
court reduced Bethea’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006)
for substantial assistance is irrelevant to the applicability of
Amendment 706. Hood, 556 F.3d at 234.
Bethea also contends that the district court could have
considered a sentence below the amended guidelines range under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). This claim is
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247
(4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, U.S.L.W. (U.S.
Mar. 20, 2009) (No. 08-1185). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3