United States of America v. Yhine Hines, a/k/a Itty

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7408
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YHINE HINES, a/k/a Itty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-JRS-8)
Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 16, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yhine Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yhine Hines appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). This court reviews the denial of a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the
record and conclude that, as the district court properly held,
Hines is ineligible for the reduction he seeks. Id. at 187 (no
reduction warranted where defendant’s applicable Guidelines
range was predicated on a statutory or Guidelines provision
unaffected by the retroactively-applicable Guidelines
amendment). See also Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683,
2690-92 (2010) (because a § 3582(c)(2) motion does not permit a
plenary resentencing proceeding, a court may not revisit any
Guidelines application decisions other than the Guidelines
provisions affected by the applicable amendment); United
States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) (same).
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 --