UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RASHAWN LAMAR DAWKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00489-REP-1)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rashawn Lamar Dawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill,
Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rashawn Lamar Dawkins appeals from the district
court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence and imposing a sentence at the top of the
amended Guidelines range. On appeal, Dawkins avers that he
should have received a lower sentence and that the district
court procedurally erred. We affirm.
First, Dawkins contends that the district court erred
by failing to provide sufficient reasoning for the sentence it
imposed. However, when deciding a § 3582 motion, the district
court is not required to provide individualized reasoning, and
the record does not otherwise support the conclusion that the
court failed to consider the relevant factors. See United
States v. Smalls, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 3037658 (4th Cir. 2013).
In fact, the district court imposed the exact sentence requested
by Dawkins’ counsel.
Second, Dawkins avers that his counsel was ineffective
for failing to argue for a lower sentence. However, there is no
right to counsel in § 3582 proceedings, and as such, Dawkins’
ineffective assistance claim is not cognizable. See Coleman v.
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); United States v. Legree, 205
F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000). Finally, Dawkins challenges his
original conviction and sentence. Again, these claims are not
cognizable in a § 3582 proceeding. See United States v.
2
Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting that § 3582
provides for a modification proceeding not a collateral attack).
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3