Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MAJORS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-25
Citations: 507 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 12-7601
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MAJORS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 507
Pages: 310–310

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MAJORS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7601.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2018.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2013.
Michael Majors, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Majors appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010). We conclude that the district court properly determined that Majors was ineligible for a sentence reduction because the sentencing range for his crack cocaine offense was determined by the applicable statutory mandatory minimum, not a calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Majors, and thus was not impacted by Amendment 750. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.2010) ("[A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2)."). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See United States v. Majors, No. 1:09-cr-00192-JCC-1 (E.D.Va. Sept. 5, 2012). We grant Majors' motion to seal the exhibit he submitted in conjunction with his informal appellate brief. 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.