09-3388-cr United States v. Thomas 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 SUMMARY ORDER 5 6 RULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A 7 SUM M ARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY 8 FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1. WHEN 9 CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A D O CUM ENT FILED W ITH THIS COURT, A PARTY M UST CITE 10 EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION 11 “SUM M ARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY 12 PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 13 14 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 15 the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New 16 York, on the 9 th day of September, two thousand ten. 17 18 PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, 19 GERARD E. LYNCH, 20 Circuit Judges, 21 WILLIAM K. SESSIONS III, 22 District Judge.* 23 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 25 26 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 27 Appellee, 28 29 v. No. 09-3388-cr 30 31 ROBERT THOMAS, also known as Brooklyn, 32 Defendant-Appellant. 33 34 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 36 FOR APPELLANT: William T. Koch, Jr., Lyme, Connecticut. 37 38 FOR APPELLEE: Patrick F. Caruso, Assistant United States Attorney (Sandra S. 39 Glover, of counsel), for David B. Fein, United States Attorney 40 for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut. 41 42 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C.

43 Hall, Judge).

* The Honorable William K. Sessions III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

2 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Appellant Thomas, who was sentenced to 180 months in prison as a career offender

4 following his conviction for distribution of crack cocaine, moved for a reduction in sentence

5 pursuant to

(c)(2). The district court declined to grant the reduction, and

6 denied Thomas’s further request for a “full resentencing,” at which he sought to revisit his

7 designation as a career offender.

8 Thomas does not challenge the district court’s discretionary denial of a sentence

9 reduction. He does, however, appeal the district court’s ruling that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1)

10 precludes a plenary resentencing under

(c)(2). Thomas’s brief essentially

11 conceded that the district court’s ruling was correct under our decision in United States v.

12 Savoy,

(2d Cir. 2009), but argued that Savoy might be overruled by the Supreme

13 Court in a then-pending case, Dillon v. United States,

(2010).

14 After the instant case was fully briefed, however, the Supreme Court decided Dillon,

15 and agreed with our conclusion in Savoy. Dillon,

. We have since applied

16 the rule of Dillon to a claim essentially identical to Thomas’s. See United States v. Mock,

17

(2d Cir. 2010). As Dillon and Mock are dispositive of Thomas’s sole

18 argument on appeal, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

19 20 FOR THE COURT: 21 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court 22 23

2