Filed: Oct. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7296 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BROOKS TYRONE CHAMBERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00131-MR-1) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7296 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BROOKS TYRONE CHAMBERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00131-MR-1) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7296
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BROOKS TYRONE CHAMBERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00131-MR-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brooks Tyrone Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brooks Tyrone Chambers appeals the district court's
orders denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his motion for
reconsideration. Chambers argues that the district court erred
by failing to reduce his sentence based upon U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) App. C. Amend. 706 (2007), which
lowered the offense level for sentences involving crack cocaine.
Chambers' sentence was determined by the career offender
guideline, USSG § 4B1.1, and was not based on a sentencing range
lowered by the amendment. See United States v. Hood,
556 F.3d
226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm the decision
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
2