US v. Thomas Watson, No. 12-6383 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6383 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS GARRETT WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00327-NCT-1) Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Garrett Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Carolina, for Appellee. Robert Michael Greensboro, North Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Garrett Watson appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines conclude Manual the (2011). district We court have reviewed properly the and it found record lacked the authority to reduce Watson s sixty-month sentence, which was the statutory mandatory minimum. F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. See United States v. Munn, 595 2010) (explaining that this court reviews de novo the district court s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) ); see also Dillon v. United States, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690 92 (2010) (clarifying that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing, but rather permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Sentencing Commission). Accordingly, affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. States v. 2012). before No. 1:05 cr 00327-NCT 1 (M.D.N.C. See United Feb. 21, Further, we deny Watson s motion for the appointment of counsel. legal Watson, we We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.