UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7327
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN LAMONT BENNIEFIELD, a/k/a Adrian Benniefield,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00055-HEH-1)
Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrian Lamont Benniefield, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles
Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Lamont Benniefield appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing
Guidelines and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-
220, 124 Stat. 2372 (“FSA”). We review for abuse of discretion
a district court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence
under § 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a court’s conclusion on
the scope of its legal authority under that provision.
United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Benniefield pled guilty to one count of distribution
of fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). Benniefield
was sentenced in 2009 to the statutory mandatory minimum term of
120 months’ imprisonment. In 2011, the district court reduced
Benniefield’s sentence to ninety-six months’ imprisonment
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b).
The FSA reduced the mandatory minimum sentences
applicable to certain cocaine base offenses. If Benniefield had
been sentenced under the FSA, he would not have been subject to
the 120-month mandatory minimum, and the Guidelines amendment
could reduce his amended Guidelines range below ninety-six
months. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201-04
2
(4th Cir. 2010). Benniefield, however, originally was sentenced
before the enactment of the FSA. We previously have held that
the FSA does not apply retroactively to offenders who, like
Benniefield, were sentenced before its enactment. United
States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246-49 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 356 (2011). Nor does Benniefield’s post-FSA
sentencing reduction in 2011 alter our conclusion that
Benniefield is not within the class of offenders who are
eligible to benefit from the FSA. Thus, because the FSA’s
revised penalty provisions do not apply to Benniefield, the
district court properly rejected his argument that Guidelines
Amendment 750 could further reduce his sentence.
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