UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES TILLMAN,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 09-8190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMERSON DEVOIR TILLMAN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:00-cr-00137-AW-2; 8:00-cr-00137-AW-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 9, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Tillman and Jamerson Devoir Tillman, Appellants Pro Se.
Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
James Tillman and Jamerson Devoir Tillman appeal from
the district court’s orders granting their 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006) motions and reducing their sentences. They
argue on appeal that they should receive a full resentencing in
light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), applying
the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory and allowing them to
challenge the leadership role enhancements they received. The
Tillmans’ contention that they are eligible for sentencing anew
is without merit. See Dillon v. United States, __ S. Ct. __,
No. 09-6338, 2010 WL 2400109, at *5 (June 17, 2010) (“By its
terms, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentencing or
resentencing proceeding,” it merely provides for modification of
the term of imprisonment.); United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d
247, 251-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009).
We have reviewed the records in these cases and find no abuse of
discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s orders. 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