UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6371
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORYLEE J. WHITAKER, a/k/a Corylee Jamaal Whitaker,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00349-JAG-1)
Submitted: September 12, 2012 Decided: September 24, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corylee J. Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corylee J. Whitaker appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing
Guidelines. We review a district court’s decision on whether to
reduce a sentence for abuse of discretion; however, “[w]e review
de novo . . . a court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal
authority under § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d
183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
Section 3582(c)(2) provides Whitaker no relief because
he was not sentenced “based on a sentencing range” that was
subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Rather, as
the district court properly found, he was sentenced to the
statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Whitaker’s
sentence is therefore not subject to reduction via § 3582(c)(2).
See Munn, 595 F.3d at 187 (“[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).”); United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235–36
(4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3