US v. Terrance Thompson, No. 08-7696 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7696 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRANCE BRADLEY THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-LHT-12) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Asheville, North Carolina; Tanzania Cannon-Eckerle, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrance Bradley Thompson 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 amended motion for reconsideration. Thompson argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. As we recently observed, Amendment 706 . . . amended § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels associated with crack cocaine quantities by two levels. United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009). [Thompson s] 240-month Guidelines sentence was Because based on a statutory minimum and USSG § 5G1.1(b), it was not based on a sentencing range lowered by Amendment 706 . . . . Id. at 233. The fact that the district court reduced Thompson s sentence for substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 is irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706. Hood, 556 F.3d at 234. Accordingly, we deny Thompson s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the decision of the district court. We dispense with 2 oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
