UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7701
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES ELMER GROSS, JR., a/k/a Man, a/k/a Grip,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J.
Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00201-JFM-3)
Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: June 1, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Elmer Gross, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Christine Manuelian,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Elmer Gross, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a
sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. “We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under
§ 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). After
reviewing the transcript from Gross’ resentencing hearing, we conclude that the district
court attributed to Gross one kilogram of heroin and five kilograms of cocaine and applied
six levels of enhancements. See United States v. Gross, 199 F. App’x 219, 241 (4th Cir.
2006) (No. 03-4458). Applying Amendment 782 and the other enhancements used at
resentencing, Gross’ new Guidelines range is 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment on the
relevant counts of conviction. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(c)(5),
2E1.1(c)(2), ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table) (2014). Because the district court varied
downward and sentenced Gross to 180 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts, Gross
is not eligible for a sentencing reduction. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s. & cmt. n.1(A).
Accordingly, we deny Gross’ motion to appoint counsel and 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