UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7162
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEANNIE LARGENT COSBY,
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-00033-MR-3)
Submitted: September 4, 2013 Decided: September 11, 2013
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeannie Largent Cosby, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Corey F.
Ellis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeannie Largent Cosby appeals the district court’s
orders denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motions for
reduction of sentence and denying her subsequent motion for
reconsideration. We affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s
decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and
review de novo a court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal
authority under that provision. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d
183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court
may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment when the defendant
is “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” This provision, however, provides Cosby no relief
because her sentence was based on a statutory minimum sentence
and not on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by
the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d
226, 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[I]n reducing a sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(e) and [U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual]
§ 5K1.1, the sentencing court does not apply a Guidelines
sentencing range.”); see also United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d
419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009) (stating that the starting point for a
downward departure under § 3553(e) is the statutory minimum
2
sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
denying Cosby’s § 3582(c)(2) motions.
We further conclude that the district court lacked the
authority to revisit its order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief to
Cosby. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir.
2010). Accordingly, we also affirm the district court’s order
denying Cosby’s motion for reconsideration.
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