UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6239
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREDDIE L. D. MORGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00288-JRS-1)
Submitted: April 24, 2012 Decided: May 24, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Freddie L. D. Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Michael Santos,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Freddie L. D. Morgan appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. The
foregoing provision permits modification of a defendant’s term
of imprisonment when such term is “based on a sentencing range
that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission,” in accordance with the Commission’s statutory
authority to review and revise the Sentencing Guidelines. See
id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 994(o)). Morgan’s sentence, however,
was not based on the Guidelines, but was instead premised on 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), in conformance with the mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment therein prescribed at the time he
committed the offenses of conviction. Prior to Morgan’s trial
and sentencing, § 841 was amended to increase the threshold
quantity of certain controlled substances triggering specific
mandatory minimums, yet Morgan pursued no appeal.
Section 3582, which by its terms is limited to
modification of Guidelines sentences, is not the appropriate
vehicle to seek relief from a mandatory minimum sentence imposed
by statute. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th
Cir. 2010) (“[A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense
but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence
is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”) (citation
omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of
2
relief. United States v. Morgan, No. 3:10-cr-00288-JRS-1 (E.D.
Va. Jan. 20, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3