Opinion
No. 17-7563
04-03-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CORTNEY BLAIRE SAYLOR, a/k/a C, Defendant - Appellant.
Cortney Blaire Saylor, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul Thomas Camilletti, Anna Zartler Krasinski, Assistant United States Attorneys, Lara Kay Omps-Botteicher, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Lynette Danae DeMasi-Lemon, Betsy Steinfeld Jividen, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cr-00020-GMG-RWT-25) Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cortney Blaire Saylor, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul Thomas Camilletti, Anna Zartler Krasinski, Assistant United States Attorneys, Lara Kay Omps-Botteicher, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Lynette Danae DeMasi-Lemon, Betsy Steinfeld Jividen, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Cortney Blaire Saylor appeals the district court's order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions for a sentence reduction. Any reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(2) must be based on an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(2), p.s. (2016). Because Saylor does not make any argument on appeal based on any amendment, no reduction in sentence is authorized. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of relief. 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.
Because Saylor does not challenge on appeal the district court's disposition of her claim based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines, she has forfeited appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). --------
AFFIRMED