U.S. v. CLEVELAND, 12-7544. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20121227109
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2012
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clifton Alvin Cleveland appeals the district court's order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006). Although the district court granted Cleveland's 3582 motion, the court did not reduce Cleveland's sentence to the full extent he requested. Cleveland contends that his amended Guidelines range was lower than the reduction he received because he argues that, under the Fair Sent
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clifton Alvin Cleveland appeals the district court's order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006). Although the district court granted Cleveland's 3582 motion, the court did not reduce Cleveland's sentence to the full extent he requested. Cleveland contends that his amended Guidelines range was lower than the reduction he received because he argues that, under the Fair Sente..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clifton Alvin Cleveland appeals the district court's order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Although the district court granted Cleveland's § 3582 motion, the court did not reduce Cleveland's sentence to the full extent he requested. Cleveland contends that his amended Guidelines range was lower than the reduction he received because he argues that, under the Fair Sentencing Act ("FSA"), he was no longer subject to a statutory mandatory minimum five-year sentence for his 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006) offense. However, the FSA does not apply retroactively to defendants, like Cleveland, who were sentenced before the FSA's effective date. United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 356 (2011). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
Source: Leagle
