United States v. Issac Belt , 518 F. App'x 215 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8029
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISSAC RASHAD BELT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:04-cr-00559-AW-6)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Thomas Sarachan, Staff
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Issac Rashad Belt 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 Belt’s
§ 3582 motion, the court did not reduce Belt’s sentence to the
full extent he requested. On appeal, Belt argues that, under
the Supreme Court’s decision in Dorsey v. United States, 132 S.
Ct. 2321 (2012), the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.
L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, should apply to his motion.
Contrary to Belt’s assertion, however, Dorsey did not alter this
court’s prior holding that the FSA does not apply retroactively
to defendants sentenced prior to its effective date. See United
States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
132 S. Ct. 356 (2011). * Because Belt was sentenced in April
2006, prior to the FSA’s effective date, the FSA had no effect
on Belt’s mandatory minimum sentence, and the district court
properly concluded that Belt was not entitled to a sentence
reduction under the Act. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the
*
Belt’s attempt to distinguish Bullard is meritless, as the
Supreme Court made clear in Dorsey that the FSA does not apply
to defendants sentenced before the FSA’s effective date of
August 3, 2010. 132 S. Ct. at 2335; see United States v.
Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) (acknowledging that
consideration of a § 3582(c)(2) motion does not constitute “a
full resentencing by the court”).
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3