US v. Issac Belt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:04-cr-00559-AW-6. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999091300]. Mailed to: Isaac Belt. [12-8029]

Appeal: 12-8029

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/22/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISSAC RASHAD BELT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:04-cr-00559-AW-6)

Submitted:

April 18, 2013

Decided:

April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Thomas Sarachan, Staff
Attorney,
Greenbelt,
Maryland,
for
Appellant.
Rod
J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-8029

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/22/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Issac Rashad Belt appeals the district court’s order
granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006).

Although the district court granted Belt’s

§ 3582 motion, the court did not reduce Belt’s sentence to the
full extent he requested.

On appeal, Belt argues that, under

the Supreme Court’s decision in Dorsey v. United States, 132 S.
Ct. 2321 (2012), the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.
L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, should apply to his motion.
Contrary to Belt’s assertion, however, Dorsey did not alter this
court’s prior holding that the FSA does not apply retroactively
to defendants sentenced prior to its effective date.

See United

States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
132 S. Ct. 356 (2011). *

Because Belt was sentenced in April

2006, prior to the FSA’s effective date, the FSA had no effect
on Belt’s mandatory minimum sentence, and the district court
properly

concluded

that

reduction under the Act.
court’s judgment.

Belt

was

not

entitled

to

a

sentence

Accordingly, we affirm the district

We dispense with oral argument because the

*

Belt’s attempt to distinguish Bullard is meritless, as the
Supreme Court made clear in Dorsey that the FSA does not apply
to defendants sentenced before the FSA’s effective date of
August 3, 2010.
132 S. Ct. at 2335; see United States v.
Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) (acknowledging that
consideration of a § 3582(c)(2) motion does not constitute “a
full resentencing by the court”).

2

Appeal: 12-8029

facts

Doc: 25

and

materials

legal
before

Filed: 04/22/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3