United States v. Ronald Foreman

502 F. App'x 262

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 27, 2012
• Docket: 12-7404
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONALD CORTEZ FOREMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cr-00131-RBS-FBS-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Cortez Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ronald Cortez Foreman appeals the district court’s

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

sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine

Sentencing Guidelines. We review the district court’s decision

for abuse of discretion; however, “[w]e review de novo . . . a

court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under

§ 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th

Cir. 2010). As the district court properly found, Foreman was

sentenced pursuant to the statutory mandatory minimum term of

imprisonment and therefore is not eligible for a reduction via

§ 3582(c)(2). See id. at 187 (“[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).”) (citing United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226,

235–36 (4th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. ∗ United States v. Foreman, No.

2:08-cr-00131-RBS-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. July 27, 2012).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

∗ We note that the district court placed its reasons under seal.

2 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED