Opinion
No. 16-6009
04-01-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAFAEL CEE-ERWIN SOLOMON, a/k/a J, a/k/a Rip, Defendant - Appellant.
Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00203-1) Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Rafael Cee-Erwin Solomon appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). "We review de novo a district court's ruling on the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2015). Solomon argues that United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 192 (4th Cir. 2010) authorizes the modification of a career offender's sentence where, as in his case, a downward variance was granted. But even if our holding in Munn, which considered an overrepresentation departure, could encompass a downward variance, the Sentencing Commission abrogated Munn by defining "applicable guideline range" as "the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category determined . . . before consideration of any departure provision . . . or any variance." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual App. C, Amend. 759 (2011); see USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.n.1(A). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Solomon, No. 3:11-cr-00203-1 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 25, 2015; Dec. 14, 2015). 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