United States of America v. Carlos Enriquez Hernandez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7804
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ENRIQUEZ HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
District Judge. (CR-95-262; CA-03-484)
Submitted: May 7, 2004 Decided: May 24, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Enriquez Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*Hernandez correctly argues that a certificate of
appealability is not required for review of the district court’s
denial of his motion to modify his term of imprisonment under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Enriquez Hernandez appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion to modify his term of imprisonment. * We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. As the
district court held, Amendment 640 to the Sentencing Guidelines is
a substantive amendment, which cannot be retroactively applied
absent express authorization in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a) (2002); United States v.
Hernandez, No. CR-95-262 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2003). Amendment 640
is not listed in § 1B1.10(c). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court. 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

-- 2 of 2 --