UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4779
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARD RONALD LOUIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00902-SB-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Matthew J. Modica,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerard Ronald Louis pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana and five grams or
more of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute a
quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006). Because the attributable drug quantity included five
grams or more of cocaine base, and Louis had a prior felony drug
conviction, the district court sentenced him to the statutory
mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. Finding no
error, we affirm.
On appeal, Louis contends that the Fair Sentencing Act
of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (reducing the
sentencing disparity between cocaine and cocaine base), should
be applied to him. Although Louis has standing to challenge the
sentencing statute, his argument is foreclosed by this court’s
recent decision in United States v. Bullard, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL
1718894, at *9-*11 (4th Cir. May 6, 2011) (holding that FSA does
not apply retroactively). Since Louis was sentenced on July 13,
2010, prior to the enactment of the FSA on August 3, 2010, the
FSA does not apply to him, and he is not entitled to
resentencing.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3