UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7332
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIRONDA LAVYREE SANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00020-F-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2016 Decided: February 11, 2016
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sironda Lavyree Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Katherine
Cooley, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sironda Lavyree Sanders appeals the district court’s order
denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm.
A district court may reduce a prison term if a defendant’s
Guidelines range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission and the reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). A reduction
is not consistent with applicable policy statements and
therefore not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if “an amendment
listed in [U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d) (2014)]
does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). We review a district
court’s decision under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and
its determination regarding the scope of its legal authority de
novo. United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013).
In deciding whether to modify a prison term pursuant to a
retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, we first
“determine the amended guideline range that would have been
applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the
guidelines listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] had been in effect at
the time the defendant was sentenced.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1);
2
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). “In making
such determination, the court shall substitute only the
amendments listed in [USSG § 1B1.10(d)] for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application
decisions unaffected.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1).
At sentencing, the district court adopted the presentence
report and found that Sanders was a career offender. Applying
Amendment 782, her advisory Guidelines range based on her career
offender status has not changed. Because the Sentencing
Commission has not lowered the range, a reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not authorized. We therefore 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