United States of America v. Thomas Garrett Watson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6383
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS GARRETT WATSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00327-NCT-1)
Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Garrett Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael
Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Garrett Watson appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce
his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2011). We have reviewed the record and
conclude the district court properly found it lacked the
authority to reduce Watson’s sixty-month sentence, which was the
statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Munn, 595
F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that this court
reviews de novo the district court’s “conclusion on the scope of
its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2)”); see also Dillon v.
United States, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690–92 (2010)
(clarifying that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing,
but rather permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds
established by the Sentencing Commission). Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United
States v. Watson, No. 1:05–cr–00327-NCT–1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 21,
2012). Further, we deny Watson’s motion for the appointment of
counsel. 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 --