UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7131
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WESLEY TAVERUS BLAKENEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00229-RBH-6)
Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wesley Taverus Blakeney, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher
Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Taverus Blakeney appeals the district court’s
orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence and denying his motion to alter or amend
judgment. We affirm.
Blakeney pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and distribute fifty grams or more of
cocaine base and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Blakeney’s advisory Guidelines
imprisonment range was calculated using the career offender
Guideline, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1
(2008). The district court granted a downward departure for
substantial assistance to the Government and sentenced Blakeney
in 2009 to 140 months’ imprisonment.
Blakeney’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion sought a
sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing
Guidelines—which revised the offense levels applicable to
certain cocaine base quantities under USSG § 2D1.1(c)—and the
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111-220,
124 Stat. 2372. The district court determined that Blakeney was
not entitled to relief under the FSA because he was sentenced
before its effective date and that Amendment 750 had no effect
on his Guidelines range because he was sentenced as a career
2
offender. Thus, the district court denied Blakeney’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion.
After review of the record, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief.
Because Blakeney was sentenced in 2009, prior to the effective
date of the FSA, the FSA does not apply to his sentence.
United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246-49 (4th Cir. 2011).
While Blakeney argues that United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183,
192 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that a career offender designation
did not bar a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment
706 to the Guidelines where the sentencing court granted an
overrepresentation departure and relied on the cocaine base
Guidelines in calculating the extent of the departure),
authorized the district court to reduce his sentence, Blakeney’s
sentence is distinguishable from the situation in Munn because
Blakeney has not demonstrated that the district court relied on
the cocaine base Guidelines in calculating the extent of the
departure.
Further, following the ruling in Munn, “the Sentencing
Commission clarified that when a defendant is a career offender,
the career offender range is the ‘applicable guidelines range’
for sentencing purposes.” United States v. Quarles,
889 F. Supp. 2d 783, 787 (E.D. Va. 2012) (noting that Amendment
759 to the Guidelines “effectively abrogates” the holding that a
3
defendant, “despite being a career offender, is eligible for a
[§ 3582(c)(2)] sentence reduction if, after a departure, his
sentence falls squarely within the otherwise applicable [cocaine
base] [G]uideline[s] range”), aff’d, No. 12-7486,
2013 WL 2278777, at *1 (4th Cir. May 24, 2013); see USSG App. C,
Amend. 759 (2011). Because we do not conclude that Blakeney’s
Guidelines range was based on USSG § 2D1.1(c), we cannot agree
with Blakeney’s contention that Amendment 750 altered his
Guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order denying Blakeney’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
We further conclude that the district court lacked the
authority to revisit its order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief to
Blakeney. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36
(4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we also affirm the district
court’s order denying Blakeney’s motion to alter or amend
judgment.
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
4