UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6257
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JABBAAR FAREED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00130-JAB-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jabbaar Fareed, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton,
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jabbaar Fareed appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We review a district court’s ruling
on a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). We
affirm.
In 2007, Fareed pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of distribution of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (West 2006 &
Supp. 2011). He was sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment. In
2011, the district court reduced Fareed’s sentence to 120
months’ imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In
response to the instant motion, the district court found that it
could not further reduce Fareed’s sentence because the mandatory
minimum sentence at the time of his original sentencing was ten
years.
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220
(“FSA”), reduced the mandatory minimum sentences applicable to
certain cocaine base offenses. If Fareed was sentenced under
the Fair Sentencing Act, his mandatory minimum sentence would be
five years’ incarceration and the Guidelines amendment could
reduce his advisory range below 120 months. However, Fareed was
originally sentenced before the enactment of the Fair Sentencing
2
Act when the mandatory minimum was ten years’ incarceration. We
have previously held that the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply
retroactively to offenders who, like Fareed, were sentenced
before its enactment. United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237,
248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 356 (2011). Fareed
does not fall within the class of offenders who had “not yet
been sentenced” by the date of the Fair Sentencing Act’s
enactment. Thus, the Fair Sentencing Act’s revised mandatory
minimums do not apply to Fareed, and the district court properly
found that the Guidelines amendment could not further reduce
Fareed’s sentence because he had already been sentenced to the
statutory minimum.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3