UNITED STATES v. FRAZIER (2018)

Larry Dunlap Frazier appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. “We review a district court's decision to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. At bottom, Frazier's Sentencing Guidelines range remains unchanged after application of the retroactive drug amendments because Frazier qualified for sentencing as a career offender.^* Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See United States v. Frazier, No. 3:06-cr-00087-1 (W.D.N.C. June 22, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Frazier's reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Hughes v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1765, 201 L.Ed.2d 72 (2018), is misplaced. Unlike in Hughes, Frazier's plea agreement did not include a sentencing stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.