UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7808
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHESTER GRIFFITHS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00388-JFM-1)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chester C. Griffiths, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Chester Griffiths appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) pursuant to Guidelines Amendment 782. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A district court is authorized to reduce a defendant’s
sentence of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) only if the
defendant’s sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” through
a retroactively applicable Guidelines amendment. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.10(a)(1) (2006). As the court determined at sentencing,
Griffiths’ Guidelines range was 120 months’ imprisonment because
the Guidelines range established by his total offense level and
criminal history category was lower than the statutory mandatory
minimum applicable to his offense. See 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851 (2012); USSG § 5G1.1(b); USSG ch. 5, pt. A
(sentencing table). Amendment 782 did not lower Griffiths’
mandatory minimum sentence, and his Guidelines range remains 120
months. See United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 286-87 (4th
Cir. 2013). Because Griffiths is ineligible for a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2), we find no abuse of discretion in
the court’s denial of Griffiths’ motion. See United States v.
Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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