# United States v. Brown > Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 18, 1997 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/993762 ## Case - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - **Decided:** December 18, 1997 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/993762 ## Opinion text UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6809 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TAMMY TERRELL BROWN, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/993762. Public record. Not legal advice.