UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7169
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN MAURICE LINDER, a/k/a Killer Kev,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00037-RLV-5)
Submitted: November 9, 2012 Decided: November 28, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Maurice Linder, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina;
Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A.
O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Maurice Linder appeals the district court’s
order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Although the district court granted
Linder’s motion, the court did not reduce his sentence to the
full extent he requested. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. The district court reduced Linder’s
offense level to 34, which resulted in a revised Guidelines
range of 262-327 months, after which the court imposed a
sentence of 156 months, less than 60% of the low end of the
revised Guidelines range. Linder thus received the benefit of
Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, which
implemented the Fair Sentencing Act. The court was not at
liberty to depart below the statutory minimum sentence of ten
years, which still applied in Linder’s case because the Fair
Sentencing Act does not apply to defendants like Linder who were
sentenced before the Act’s 2010 effective date. Moreover,
Linder’s ineffective assistance claim is meritless because there
is no right to counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United
States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3