UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7550
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Woods appeals from the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction
of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Although Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered offense levels
applicable to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively
applicable, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d),
p.s. (2016); USSG app. C, amend. 782, Woods was determined to be
a career offender under the Guidelines, and his status as a
career offender is not affected by Amendment 782. Because
Amendment 782 “does not have the effect of lowering [Woods’]
applicable guideline range because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision,” USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt.
n.1(A), he was not entitled to a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2). The district court thus did not reversibly err in
denying Woods’ motion. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; United
States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010), abrogation on
other grounds recognized in United States v. Muldrow, ___ F.3d
___, Nos. 15-7298, 15-7608, 2016 WL 7441620, at **3-6 (4th Cir.
Dec. 27, 2016).
Accordingly, although we grant Woods’ motion to file a
supplemental informal opening brief, we affirm the district
court’s denial order. United States v. Woods, No.
1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1 (D. Md. Oct. 21, 2016). We deny Woods’
2
motions to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government
expense and 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