Filed: May 14, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8031 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVIERO MESA-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:06-cr-00998-HFF-5) Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alviero Mesa-Lopez, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8031 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVIERO MESA-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:06-cr-00998-HFF-5) Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alviero Mesa-Lopez, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8031
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVIERO MESA-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:06-cr-00998-HFF-5)
Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alviero Mesa-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alviero Mesa-Lopez appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Because Mesa-Lopez was not sentenced
for a crack cocaine offense, Amendment 706 of the sentencing
guidelines has no effect on his sentence. See United States v.
Hood,
556 F.3d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Amendment 706 lowered
only the crack cocaine offense levels in [U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual] § 2D1.1.”). Therefore, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reduction
of sentence, and we affirm the district court’s order. 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
2