US v. Kenya Martin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:05-cr-0009-RLV-DCK-16 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998974358].. [12-7127]

Appeal: 12-7127

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/05/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7127

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENYA LASHAN MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-16)

Submitted:

September 26, 2012

Decided:

November 5, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenya Lashan Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
William A. Brafford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley, Maria
Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7127

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/05/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Kenya

Lashan

Martin

appeals

the

district

court’s

denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
in her sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”). 1
court

stated

that

“[t]he

In denying the motion, the district
defendant’s

sentence

reduced, in all counts, to 188 months in 2009.
Amendment

750,

the

reduction

results

in

was

previously

After applying

the

same

reduced

guideline range.”
Pursuant

to

USSG

§ 1B1.10,

when

a

defendant’s

applicable Guidelines range has been lowered by an amendment to
the Guidelines, the district court may reduce the defendant’s
term of imprisonment under § 3582.
granting

or

discretion.
2010).
an

denying

a

This court reviews an order

§ 3582(c)(2)

motion

for

abuse

of

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.

A district court abuses its discretion if it relies on

erroneous

factual

or

legal

premise.

DIRECTV,

Inc.

v.

Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008).
1

Martin
was
originally
sentenced
to
235
months’
imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, five
kilograms or more of cocaine, and 1000 kilograms or more of
marijuana, and to three counts of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
846 (2006). In 2008, the district court reduced her sentence to
188 months’ imprisonment pursuant to Amendment 706 to the
Sentencing Guidelines.

2

Appeal: 12-7127

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/05/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

The original presentence investigation report (“PSR”)
recommended that Martin be held responsible for three kilograms
of cocaine base.
found

only

that

At sentencing, however, the district court
Martin

was

kilograms of cocaine base.

accountable

for

at

least

1.5

After the 2008 sentence reduction

pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to the Guidelines,
Martin’s

base

offense

level

was

thirty-six. 2

Under

the

Guidelines as amended by Amendment 750, the base offense level
for an offender responsible for 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base is
thirty-four.

USSG

§ 2D1.1(c)(3).

Thus,

Martin’s

sentencing

range has been lowered by Amendment 750 to the Guidelines.

The

district court’s conclusion that Amendment 750 does not provide
a basis for considering a further reduction of Martin’s sentence
was therefore erroneous.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
remand for reconsideration of the § 3582 motion. 3

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

After application of a two-level enhancement for Martin’s
possession of a dangerous weapon, and a three-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility, Martin’s total offense level
was thirty-five.
3

By this disposition, we indicate no view as to whether the
district court should further reduce Martin’s sentence, leaving
that discretionary determination to the lower court.
We
conclude only that Martin is eligible for a sentence reduction
pursuant to Amendment 750.

3

Appeal: 12-7127

Doc: 8

adequately

Filed: 11/05/2012

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4