United States v. Rolle
United States v. Rolle
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7554
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TROY ROLLE, a/k/a Robert Stan Marks,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-608)
Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Rolle, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Troy Rolle appeals the district court’s oral order
denying his motion to modify his sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). Rolle sought relief based on the Supreme
Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220(2005).
The relief Rolle seeks is unavailable under § 3582(c)(2). See
United States v. Goines,
357 F.3d 469, 473(4th Cir. 2004)(noting
that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a “district court to reduce the
sentence imposed on a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 994(o)”); see also United States v. Moreno,
421 F.3d 1217, 1220(11th Cir. 2005) (holding that “Booker is inapplicable to
§ 3582(c)(2) motions”). Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished