6:94-cr-00238-GRA-1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Pam Turner, a/k/a Pamela M. Turner

Filed: December 10, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6640
(6:94-cr-00238-GRA-1)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAM TURNER, a/k/a Pamela M. Turner,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed November 14, 2008, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, district court information section -- the
name of “Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge” is deleted
and is replaced by “G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6640
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAM TURNER, a/k/a Pamela M. Turner,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:94-cr-00238-GRA-1)
Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 14, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pam Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Reginald I. Lloyd, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Pam Turner appeals the district court’s order granting in
part her motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), seeking a
reduction in her sentence based on an amendment to the Sentencing
Guidelines. Although the district court granted Turner’s motion,
it reduced her sentence for distribution of cocaine base from 180
months’ imprisonment to 145 months, rather than the requested 121
months. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion or other reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See
United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion
under § 3582(c) “is subject to the discretion of the district
court”); United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir.
2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --