UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7080
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARYLE LAMONT MCNEILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00210-F-1)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daryle Lamont McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daryle Lamont McNeill appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th
Cir. 2010) (providing standard). Under § 3582(c)(2), the
district court may modify the term of imprisonment “of a
defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is
listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10
(2016). Section 1B1.10(d) of the Guidelines lists the
amendments that receive retroactive application, and this list
does not include Amendment 794. Therefore, Amendment 794 cannot
be given retroactive effect in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See
United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009);
United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004).
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
2