United States of America v. Zachary Liverman, a/k/a Zack

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7611
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZACHARY LIVERMAN, a/k/a Zack,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:95-cr-00151-FBS-8)
Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zachary Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Zachary Liverman appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. The district
court may reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) “if such a
reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued
by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A
reduction “is not consistent with [the Commission’s] policy
statement 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.” USSG
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (2011). The district court correctly
determined that it lacked authority to reduce Liverman’s
sentence under Amendment 750 and § 3582(c)(2), because the
amendment did not have the effect of lowering his Guidelines
range. Under the new Guidelines, a level thirty-six applies to
cocaine base quantities of between 2.8 kilograms and less than
8.4 kilograms. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(3) (2011).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
United States v. Liverman, No. 2:95-cr-00151-FBS-8 (E.D. Va.
filed Nov. 10, & entered Nov. 14, 2011). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --