UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6524
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE EDWARD SMITH, JR., a/k/a Little George, a/k/a Baby G.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00094-HCM-FBS-1)
Submitted: June 11, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Edward Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Edward Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. The district court found that Amendment 750
lowered Smith’s Guidelines range and denied relief upon
reasoning that Smith was not eligible for a sentence reduction
because the low end of his reduced Guidelines range did not fall
below his current term of imprisonment. See United States v.
Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201-03 (4th Cir. 2010). While we concur
that Smith is not entitled to relief, we disagree with the
district court’s analysis. We conclude that Smith’s Guidelines
range was simply unaffected by Amendment 750 because his base
offense level remained thirty-six pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2011). Thus, because Smith is
not eligible for resentencing under § 3583(c)(2), we affirm the
judgment of the district court. See United States v. Smith, 395
F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that appellate court “may
affirm on any grounds apparent from the record”). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3