The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6809
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TAMMY TERRELL BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-92-132, CA-97-99-3-19)
Submitted: November 25, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tammy Terrell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Terry L. Wooten, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tammy Brown appeals from the district court's order denying
her motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
1994 & Supp. 1997). Initially, we note that Brown alleges no vio-
lation of any constitutional right, as required by 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2253(c)(2) (West Supp. 1997), for issuance of a certificate of
appealability. In any event, however, we find that Brown is not
entitled to relief on the merits.
Brown's claim that the sentencing court erroneously added two
points to her criminal history score is moot because, as a career
offender, the guidelines dictated that her criminal history cate-
gory be Category VI. See United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual, § 4B1.1 (1995). Moreover, her contention that Amendment 506
to § 4B1.1 requires reduction of her sentence is foreclosed by the
Supreme Court's recent determination that Amendment 506 is invalid.
See United States v. LaBonte, 117 S. Ct. 1673, 1679 (1997). Final-
ly, the district court properly declined to reduce Brown's sentence
based on Amendment 459 to § 3E1.1 because that amendment cannot be
applied retroactively. See United States v. Rodriguez-Diaz, 19 F.3d
1340, 1341 (11th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis-
miss this appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2