US v. Carlos Woods, No. 16-7550 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7550 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS WOODS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Woods appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Although Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered offense levels applicable to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d), p.s. (2016); USSG app. C, amend. 782, Woods was determined to be a career offender under the Guidelines, and his status as a career offender is not affected by Amendment 782. Because Amendment 782 “does not have the effect of lowering [Woods’] applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline n.1(A), or he statutory was § 3582(c)(2). not provision,” entitled to USSG a § 1B1.10, sentence p.s., reduction cmt. under The district court thus did not reversibly err in denying Woods’ motion. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010), abrogation on other grounds recognized in United States v. Muldrow, ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 15-7298, 15-7608, 2016 WL 7441620, at **3-6 (4th Cir. Dec. 27, 2016). Accordingly, supplemental court’s although informal denial opening order. 1:07-cr-00127-WDQ-1 we (D. Md. grant brief, United Oct. 2 21, Woods’ we motion affirm States 2016). v. We to the file a district Woods, deny No. Woods’ motions to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
