Case ID: f-appx_415/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Roger PEARSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-6025.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
    Decided: March 9, 2011.
    Joseph Roger Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Joseph Roger Pearson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2872. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The Fair Sentencing Act, which increased the amounts of cocaine base that trigger the statutory minimum sentences at 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b) (West 2006 & Supp.2010), is not retroactive and is therefore inapplicable to Pearson’s sentence. See United States v. Diaz, 627 F.3d 930, 931 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900, 909 n. 7 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Bell, 624 F.3d 803, 814 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575, 580 (6th Cir.2010).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Pearson, No. 7:08-cr-00818-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2010). 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.