UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7440
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KELVIN FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00022-NKM-1)
Submitted: April 24, 2012 Decided: May 7, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Ronald Mitchell
Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Freeman appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2011). ∗ We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Freeman correctly notes that the district
court’s consideration of his motion under Amendment 750 was
premature as the amendment had not yet gone into effect at the
time the court entered the order. However, because Amendment
750 is now in effect and the district court did not err in
concluding that Freeman does not qualify for a sentence
reduction under Amendment 750, this argument is moot.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Freeman, No. 3:08-cr-00022-NKM-1 (W.D.
Va. Oct. 17, 2011). We further deny Freeman’s motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗
To the extent Freeman relied on Amendment 706 to the
Guidelines in his § 3582(c)(2) motion, that amendment was
already taken into consideration at his sentencing, which took
place after the amendment’s effective date of November 1, 2007.
2