United States of America v. William David Locklair, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6296
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM DAVID LOCKLAIR, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:11-cr-02079-TLW-1)
Submitted: August 23, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William David Locklair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William David Locklair, Jr., appeals from the district
court’s order granting him a sentence reduction from 192 to 180
months’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).
Locklair argues on appeal that the district court erred by
failing to reduce his sentence to 155 months’ imprisonment, a
sentence near the bottom of the amended Sentencing Guidelines
range resulting from application of Amendment 782.*
The district court, however, was not required to impose
such a sentence. See United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197,
200 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he decision about whether to reduce a
sentence [under § 3582(c)(2)] is discretionary on the part of
the district court. The court is not required to reduce a
defendant’s sentence, even where the current sentence is above
the amended guidelines range.”). Locklair fails to establish an
abuse of discretion by the district court, see United States v.
Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of
review), and we therefore affirm the district court’s order.
United States v. Locklair, No. 4:11-cr-02079-TLW-1 (D.S.C.
Feb. 9, 2016).
* Application of Amendment 782 to Locklair reduced his
Guidelines range from 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment to 151 to
188 months’ imprisonment.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --