UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6727
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH BERNARD TATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00137-FDW-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 27, 2010
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Bernard Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina;
Gretchen C. F. Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Bernard Tate appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for
reduction in sentence. Tate sought relief under Amendment 599
to the federal sentencing guidelines, which clarified “under
what circumstances defendants sentenced for violations of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) [(2006)] in conjunction with convictions for
other offenses may receive weapon enhancements contained in the
guidelines for those other offenses.” U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual App. C, Amendment 599 cmt. (backg’d) (Supp.
2000). Although the district court incorrectly construed Tate’s
motion as seeking reconsideration of the court’s earlier order
denying § 3582 relief based on another guidelines amendment, we
nevertheless affirm the court’s order on alternative grounds.
Section 3582(c) permits the court to reduce a sentence
“in the case of 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.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Amendment 599 was already in effect when Tate was
sentenced in 2002, so he is not entitled to § 3582 relief.
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3