Opinion
08-27-2013
United States of America, Appellee, v. Gary Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
FOR DEFENDANT -APPELLANT: Gary Williams, pro se, Folkston, GA. FOR APPELLEE: Alicyn L. Cooley and Susan Corkery, Assistant United States Attorneys, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of August, two thousand thirteen. PRESENT:
RALPH K. WINTER,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
FOR DEFENDANT -APPELLANT:
Gary Williams, pro se,
Folkston, GA.
FOR APPELLEE:
Alicyn L. Cooley and Susan
Corkery, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Eastern
District of New York,
Brooklyn, NY.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Gary Williams, pro se, appeals from the district court's order denying his motion made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines for reduction of an imposed term of imprisonment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's determination as to whether the defendant's sentence was based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir. 2009). After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court judge in his well-reasoned decision filed September 12, 2012.
We have considered all of Williams's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk