Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0227-01.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. Gerard Ronald LOUIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-4779.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 30, 2011.
    Decided: July 5, 2011.
    John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Matthew J. Módica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gerard Ronald Louis pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana and five grams or more of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Because the attributable drug quantity included five grams or more of cocaine base, and Louis had a prior felony drug conviction, the district court sentenced him to the statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Louis contends that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (reducing the sentencing disparity between cocaine and cocaine base), should be applied to him. Although Louis has standing to challenge the sentencing statute, his argument is foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248-9 (4th Cir.2011) (holding that FSA does not apply retroactively). Since Louis was sentenced on July 13, 2010, prior to the enactment of the FSA on August 3, 2010, the FSA does not apply to him, and he is not entitled to resentencing.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.