UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8101
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALOHONDRA REY STATON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00054-H-1)
Submitted: May 31, 2013 Decided: June 11, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alohondra Rey Staton appeals from the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence. The district court denied the motion, finding that
Staton’s Guidelines range was based upon his career offender
status and, thus, was unchanged by any Guidelines amendments
regarding drug quantity. On appeal, Staton avers that,
following our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237
(4th Cir. 2011), he should no longer be sentenced as a career
offender. We affirm.
A district court may reduce a prison term if the
defendant’s Guidelines range has subsequently been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission and the reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A
reduction “is not consistent with this policy statement and
therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” if the
amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s
applicable guideline range.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (2012). We review a district court’s decision
under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010).
To determine whether a Guidelines amendment has the
effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range,
the district court should follow the direction in U.S.
2
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1) (2012) to substitute
the amendment for the corresponding Guidelines provision that
was applied at the defendant’s sentencing, and leave all other
Guidelines calculations as they were originally. Stewart, 595
F.3d at 200-01; United States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 245 (4th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232-34 (4th
Cir. 2009). Because substitution of the relevant Guidelines
amendments neither lowered Staton’s Guidelines range nor
affected his career offender status, the district court
correctly found that Staton was ineligible for § 3582 relief.
Thus, even assuming application of Simmons would alter Staton’s
Guidelines range, relief under Simmons is not available pursuant
to § 3582.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district
court. 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
3