UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6845
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KENYAR ANDRAKIOS GLOVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-MR-2)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenyar Andrakios Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jill
Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenyar Glover appeals the district court order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence
reduction under Guidelines Amendment 750. The district court
denied the motion after finding Glover ineligible for a sentence
reduction because his Guidelines range was driven by a statutory
mandatory minimum due to a prior felony conviction. On appeal,
Glover argues only that he should be resentenced because this
predicate conviction no longer qualifies as a felony following
the decisions in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577
(2010), and United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.
2011) (en banc). However, a § 3582(c)(2) motion is not a proper
vehicle for raising such a challenge to a defendant’s sentence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting sentence reduction for “a
defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission” by operation of retroactive Guidelines
Amendment); Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690-92
(2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize full
resentencing, but permits sentence reduction only within narrow
bounds established by Sentencing Commission). Because Glover
identifies no reversible error in the denial of his § 3582(c)(2)
motion, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3