Case ID: f-appx_573/html/0248-01.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. Jerome VAN BUREN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-6222.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 22, 2014.
    Decided: May 28, 2014.
    Jerome Van Burén, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, John Samuel Bowler, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerome van Burén appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied relief, finding that Amendment 750 had no effect on van Buren’s Guidelines range because he was sentenced as a career offender. We affirm.

After review of the record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief. Because van Burén was sentenced in 2005, prior to the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”), the FSA does not apply. United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246-49 (4th Cir.2011); see United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 282 (4th Cir.2013), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1902, 188 L.Ed.2d 932 (2014). Further, van Buren’s Guidelines range was determined by his career offender status. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.2010). Finally, although Van Burén argued that the FSA did in fact change his Guidelines range because it lowered the statutory maximum penalty for his drug offense, which resulted in a lower career offender base offense level, we reject his claim. See United States v. Charles, 749 F.3d 767, 2014 WL 1424468, at *1 (9th Cir.2014).

Accordingly, we affirm. 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.