United States v. Pearson
This text of 415 F. App'x 479 (United States v. Pearson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Joseph Roger Pearson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2872. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The Fair Sentencing Act, which increased the amounts of cocaine base that trigger the statutory minimum sentences at 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b) (West 2006 & Supp.2010), is not retroactive and is therefore inapplicable to Pearson’s sentence. See United States v. Diaz, 627 F.3d 930, 931 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900, 909 n. 7 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Bell, 624 F.3d 803, 814 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575, 580 (6th Cir.2010).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Pearson, No. 7:08-cr-00818-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma *480 terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
415 F. App'x 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pearson-ca4-2011.