UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7103
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLAIBORNE LEMAR MAUPIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00047-NKM-18)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: May 5, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney,
Ronald M. Huber, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Claiborne Lemar Maupin pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to participating in a
racketeering influenced corrupt organization, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), 1963 (2012). The parties requested a term of
imprisonment of 240 months, and the district court sentenced
Maupin accordingly. Maupin appeals from the district court’s
June 2016 order denying his motion for a reduced sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We affirm.
“We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence
under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to
the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.”
United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant sentenced
pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is eligible for a
§ 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction only if the agreement “expressly
uses a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the charged
offense to establish the term of imprisonment, and that range is
subsequently lowered by the United States Sentencing
Commission.” United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337, 340 (4th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Freeman v.
United States, 564 U.S. 522, 534 (2011) (Sotomayor, J.,
concurring)). The plea agreement here is devoid of any
Sentencing Guidelines range calculation; therefore, Maupin is
2
ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. In addition, mindful
that one panel of this court “cannot overrule a decision issued
by another panel,” United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 261
(4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted), we reject
Maupin’s request to overrule Brown.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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