United States v. Michael Majors

507 F. App'x 314

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 25, 2013
• Docket: 12-7601
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL MAJORS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00192-JCC-1)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Majors, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Michael Majors appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction

in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual (2010). We conclude that the district court

properly determined that Majors was ineligible for a sentence

reduction because the sentencing range for his crack cocaine

offense was determined by the applicable statutory mandatory

minimum, not a calculation of the drug quantity attributable to

Majors, and thus was not impacted by Amendment 750. See United

States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]

defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced

pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible

for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”). Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s order. See United States v. Majors, No.

1:09-cr-00192-JCC-1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 5, 2012). We grant Majors’

motion to seal the exhibit he submitted in conjunction with his

informal appellate brief. 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