UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE ANDRE BLAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J.
Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cr-00027-H-1)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Andre Bland, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Andre Bland appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a
sentence reduction under Guidelines Amendment 750 and the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372
(“FSA”). On appeal, Bland argues that the district court should
have reduced his sentence below the pre-FSA mandatory minimum
sentence applicable to his offense by applying 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(e) or (f) (2006). He also asks this court to revisit the
district court’s original Guidelines calculations unrelated to
Amendment 750. Because Bland did not raise these arguments in
the district court, we review them for plain error. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32
(1993). We conclude that Bland has demonstrated no error, plain
or otherwise, on these grounds. See Melendez v. United States,
518 U.S. 120, 125-26 (1996) (recognizing that the Government
must file a § 3553(e) motion seeking or permitting a sentence
below the statutory mandatory minimum before the district court
is authorized to impose such a sentence); United States v.
Henry, 673 F.3d 285, 292-93 (4th Cir.) (providing requirements
for relief under the “safety valve” provision of § 3553(f)),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 182 (2012); United States v. Stewart,
595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) (acknowledging that
2
consideration of a § 3582(c)(2) motion does not constitute “a
full resentencing by the court”).
Turning to the district court’s grounds for denying
relief under § 3582(c)(2), we have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. * United States v. Bland, No.
2:05-cr-00027-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2012). 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
*
Insofar as Bland asks us to reconsider our conclusion in
United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
132 S. Ct. 356 (2011), that the FSA does not apply retroactively
to those, like Bland, who were sentenced prior to the FSA’s
effective date, we decline his invitation. See id. at 246 (“[A]
panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly,
the precedent set by a prior panel of this court.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); cf. Dorsey v. United States, 132 S.
Ct. 2321, 2335 (2012) (holding that the FSA applies
retroactively to those whose crimes occurred before the FSA’s
effective date but who were sentenced after that date).
3