UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6933
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYAN O’NEIL LANSDOWNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00185-TSE-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2009 Decided: October 30, 2009
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph
Leiser, Kimberly Ann Riley, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne appeals the district court’s
order granting his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Applying Amendment 706 of the
Guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) App.
C Supp. Amend. 706, the district court reduced Lansdowne’s
sentence by thirty months to 262 months of imprisonment.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Lansdowne was held responsible for conspiring to
distribute over 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base, for a base
offense level of thirty-six under Amendment 706. See USSG
§§ 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s., 2D1.1(c)(2) (2008). However, because he
qualified as a career offender, see USSG § 4B1.1(b)(A), his base
offense level is thirty-seven. See § 4B1.1(b) (“[I]f the
offense level for a career offender from the table in this
subsection is greater than the offense level otherwise
applicable, the offense level from the table in this subsection
shall apply.”). Applying the three-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, we find that Lansdowne’s total
offense level is thirty-four. With a criminal history category
of VI, the amended guidelines range is 262 to 327 months.
We therefore find that the district court properly
reduced Lansdowne’s sentence to 262 months. Although Lansdowne
argues that he should have received a greater reduction, the
2
district court was not authorized to reduce the sentence below
262 months. Pursuant to USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), p.s., “the
court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term
that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”
As we recently ruled, this limitation is jurisdictional. United
States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 254 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense 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