US v. Alohondra Staton, No. 12-8101 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8101 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff Appellee, v. ALOHONDRA REY STATON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00054-H-1) Submitted: May 31, 2013 Decided: June 11, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alohondra Rey Staton appeals from the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. The district court denied the motion, finding that Staton s Guidelines range was based upon his career offender status and, thus, was unchanged by any Guidelines amendments regarding drug quantity. On appeal, Staton avers that, following our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), he should no longer be sentenced as a career offender. We affirm. A district court may reduce a prison term if the defendant s Guidelines range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and the reduction is consistent with applicable reduction policy is not statements. consistent 18 with U.S.C. this § 3582(c)(2). policy statement A and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant s applicable guideline range. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (2012). U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual We review a district court s decision under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). To determine whether a Guidelines amendment has the effect of lowering the defendant s applicable Guidelines range, the district court should follow 2 the direction in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1) (2012) to substitute the amendment for the corresponding Guidelines provision that was applied at the defendant s sentencing, and leave all other Guidelines calculations as they were originally. Stewart, 595 F.3d at 200-01; United States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232-34 (4th Cir. 2009). amendments Because substitution of the relevant Guidelines affected neither his lowered career Staton s offender Guidelines status, the range district nor court correctly found that Staton was ineligible for § 3582 relief. Thus, even assuming application of Simmons would alter Staton s Guidelines range, relief under Simmons is not available pursuant to § 3582. Accordingly, court. legal before we affirm the order of the district 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 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.
