US v. Antoine Frazier, No. 08-8120 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8120 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTOINE MARC FRAZIER, a/k/a Hog, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00658-TLW) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antoine Marc Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antoine Marc Frazier appeals the district court s order denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Frazier argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based on See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. Manual ( USSG ) Amend. 706. § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C 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. 2009). United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. Because [Frazier s] 240-month Guidelines sentence was 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 Frazier s sentence for substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and Fed. applicability of R. Crim. Amendment P. 706. 35 is irrelevant Hood, 556 F.3d to the at 234. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.