UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES L. PETTUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00009-HEH-1)
Submitted: June 15, 2010 Decided: July 13, 2010
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James L. Pettus, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James L. Pettus appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to alter or amend a judgment. We affirm.
Pettus’s motion to alter or amend was filed in
response to the district court’s partial grant of his motion for
a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2006). The district court awarded Pettus a two-level reduction
in his total offense level pursuant to Amendment 706 of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual and reduced Pettus’s
sentence from 180 months imprisonment to 154 months. Pettus
claimed in his motion to alter or amend that he should have been
sentenced at the low end of the revised Guidelines range. On
appeal, he argues that he was entitled to a full resentencing
under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 245 (2007).
In United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235
(4th Cir. 2010), we concluded that a district court is without
jurisdiction to entertain a motion to alter or amend a judgment
granting or denying relief on a § 3582(c) motion unless the
motion to alter or amend was made to correct “an arithmetical,
technical, or other clear error.” Because Pettus challenges the
merits of the district court’s decision in his motion to alter
2
or amend, we conclude that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to hear the motion. *
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
*
Our decision to affirm is also supported by the Supreme
Court’s recent holding that the remedial aspect of Booker does
not make the Sentencing Guidelines advisory in a § 3582(c)
proceeding. Dillon v. United States, 2010 WL 2400109 (U.S. June
17, 2010) (No. 09-6338); see also United States v. Dunphy, 551
F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401
(2009) (holding same).
3