USCA4 Appeal: 24-6939 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6939

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN RAMIREZ MARTINEZ, a/k/a Panda, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00029-FL-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Ramirez Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6939 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Juan Ramirez Martinez appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821. Amendment was a multi-part amendment. Part A of Amendment 821, amending U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, limits the impact of “status points,” which are “additional criminal history points given to defendants for the fact of having committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.7.

Part B of Amendment 821, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, decreases a defendant’s offense level by two levels for a defendant who did not receive any criminal history points and whose offense did not involve certain aggravating factors.

We have reviewed the record and find that Martinez did not receive any status points, rendering him ineligible for relief under Part A. Martinez did receive criminal history points, rendering him ineligible for relief under Part B. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motion for a sentence reduction.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Martinez, No. 7:16-cr-29-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED