UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6545
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE D. HILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:08-cr-00204-AWA-FBS-2)
Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 26, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie D. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
Assistant United States Attorney, Cameron Rountree, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie D. Hill appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). Following his guilty plea to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), Hill was
sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 240 months’
imprisonment. * Because Hill’s sentence was based upon the
statutorily mandated minimum, rather than a Guidelines range
that was subsequently lowered, he was ineligible for a reduction
in sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Munn, 595
F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A] defendant who was convicted
of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory
statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under §
3582(c)(2).”) (citing United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-
36 (4th Cir. 2009)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
Hill was also sentenced to a consecutive sixty-month term
of imprisonment for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), 2
(2006). However, this sentence is not at issue in the instant
appeal.
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3