UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6089
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WELDON BAKER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00177-F-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Weldon Baker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina;
Shawn Robert Evans, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Weldon Baker, Jr., 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.
In 2009, Baker pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with
intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Baker was sentenced to the
statutory mandatory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment.
In 2012, Baker, through counsel, sought a sentence reduction,
arguing that had he been sentenced under the FSA, he would not
have been subject to the 120-month mandatory minimum.
Baker, 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 Baker, were
sentenced before its enactment. United States v. Bullard, 645
F.3d 237, 246-49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 356
2
(2011). Moreover, because Amendment 750 did not lower the
applicable Guidelines range, the district court properly denied
Baker’s motion to reduce sentence. See Munn, 595 F.3d at 187.
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