US v. Tommy Bennett, Jr., No. 12-7754 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7754 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TOMMY LEWIS BENNETT, JR., Defendant -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. (1:08-cr-00369-NCT-2) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy Lewis Bennett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tommy Lewis Bennett, Jr., appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. We review the district court s decision for abuse of discretion; however, [w]e review de novo . . . a court s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2). Cir. 2010). United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Because Bennett s sentence was not based on a Guidelines provision that was subsequently amended, Bennett is ineligible for a reduction via § 3582(c)(2). ( [A] defendant who was convicted of a See id. at 187 crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). ) (citing United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235 36 (4th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United (M.D.N.C. Sept. States 25, v. 2012). Bennett, We deny No. 1:08-cr-00369-NCT-2 Bennett s motions for appointment of counsel and provision of transcripts. We 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 2