UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6350
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-JPB-1)
Submitted: March 17, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas
Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., appeals from the district
court’s order granting in part his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006)
motion for reduction of sentence. On appeal, Hairston asserts
that the district court abused its discretion by failing to give
him a full resentencing hearing and that the district court
failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the chosen sentence.
We affirm.
Hairston’s claim that he was entitled to a full
resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), is foreclosed by our decision in United States v.
Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir.) (holding that “proceedings
under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute a full resentencing of the
defendant”), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009), and the
Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct.
2683, 2693 (2010) (finding that holding in Booker does not apply
to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings). Accordingly, this claim is
without merit.
Hairston next asserts that the district court did not
fully consider his circumstances prior to choosing a sentence.
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court “may reduce the term of
imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section
§ 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” In United
States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), we held
2
that there exists a presumption, absent a contrary indication in
the record, that the district court considered the § 3553(a)
factors in denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Here, the record
provides no support for Hairston’s assertions that the district
court failed to properly consider his motion; accordingly, we
presume that the court’s consideration of the appropriate
factors was sufficient. See also United States v. Evans, 587
F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that court is not
required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when
denying § 3582 motion), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We deny Hairston’s motions to appoint counsel, to
clarify, and to order the Warden to provide writing materials.
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