12-724-cr U.S. v. Reed UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of June, two thousand thirteen. Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR., Circuit Judges, WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge.* ________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 12-724-cr ALPHONSO BENTON, Defendant, JASON REED, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________________________________ * The Honorable William F. Kuntz, II, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. For Appellee: PAUL D. SILVER (John M. Katko, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Albany, NY For Defendants-Appellant: JAMES P. EGAN (Lisa A. Peebles, on the brief), Federal Public Defender’s Office, Syracuse, NY Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northen District of New York (Scullin, J.). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Defendant-Appellant Jason Reed appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northen District of New York (Scullin, J.) dated February 22, 2012. In that order, the district court refused to reduce Reed’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to a term of imprisonment that fell below his amended guideline range. We affirm for the reasons set forth in United States v. Clifton Stith, 11-4933-cr (2d Cir. May 30, 2013). We have considered the Defendant-Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 2