Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04113/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandi Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRANDI MARTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Chief

District Judge. (2:06-cr-00197)

Submitted: January 23, 2008 Decided: February 7, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barron M. Helgoe, VICTOR VICTOR & HELGOE LLP, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States

Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4113 Doc: 37 Filed: 02/07/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brandi Martin pled guilty to distribution of a quantity

of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000), and was

sentenced to a term of thirty-seven months imprisonment. Martin

appeals her sentence, challenging on due process grounds the

district court’s decision not to impose a variance sentence below

the advisory guideline range. She also argues that the court erred

in treating the 100:1 ratio for crack and powder cocaine offenses

as a factor that could not justify a sentence outside the guideline

range. In her reply brief, Martin moves for resentencing under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). For the reasons explained below, we

deny the motion but vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing.

At sentencing, Martin did not dispute the calculation of

her guideline range but, in her argument for a variance, she urged

the district court to consider the Sentencing Commission’s negative

view of the 100:1 ratio for crack and powder cocaine offenses.

Arguing against a variance, the government relied on United States

v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that 100:1 ratio

could not be used as basis for variance), vacated, ___ S. Ct. ___,

2008 WL 59208 (U.S. Jan. 7, 2008) (No. 05-11659). 

Appeal: 07-4113 Doc: 37 Filed: 02/07/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
*

In her plea agreement, Martin waived her right to seek

appellate review of the reasonableness of her sentence. Because

the government has not asserted the waiver as a bar to this appeal,

we do not consider it. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168

(4th Cir. 2005).

- 3 -

A sentence is reviewed for reasonableness, applying an

abuse of discretion standard.* Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.

586, ___, 2007 WL 4292116, at *7 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2007) (No. 06-

7949). A sentence within a correctly calculated advisory guideline

range is accorded a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness on

appeal. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); see also Rita v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding rebuttable

presumption of reasonableness for within-guideline sentence).

However, after the parties’ briefs were filed, the Supreme Court

decided, in Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), that

“it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to

conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the

crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’

to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.”

Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at ___, 2007 WL 4292040, at *14. Kimbrough

thus abrogated Eura. 

Because the district court did not have the benefit of

Kimbrough when it determined Martin’s sentence, we vacate the

sentence and remand the case for resentencing. We express no

opinion as to the reasonableness of a variance sentence. We deny

Appeal: 07-4113 Doc: 37 Filed: 02/07/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

Martin’s motion for resentencing under § 3582(c)(2). On remand,

the amended guidelines for crack offenses, effective November 1,

2007, will be applicable. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 07-4113 Doc: 37 Filed: 02/07/2008 Pg: 4 of 4