United States v. Jerome Van Buren

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6222
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME VAN BUREN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00253-H-1)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Van Buren, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome van Buren appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), based on Amendment 750 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied relief,
finding that Amendment 750 had no effect on van Buren’s
Guidelines range because he was sentenced as a career offender.
We affirm.
After review of the record, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief.
Because van Buren was sentenced in 2005, prior to the effective
date of the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”), the FSA does not apply.
United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246-49 (4th Cir. 2011);
see United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 282 (4th Cir. 2013),
cert. denied, 2014 WL 956495 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2014). Further, van
Buren’s Guidelines range was determined by his career offender
status. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.
2010). Finally, although Van Buren argued that the FSA did in
fact change his Guidelines range because it lowered the
statutory maximum penalty for his drug offense, which resulted
in a lower career offender base offense level, we reject his
claim. See United States v. Charles, __ F.3d __, __ 2014 WL
1424468, at *1 (9th Cir. 2014).
2
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
3