US v. Jerome Van Buren

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:03-cr-00253-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999363481]. Mailed to: Jerome Van Buren. [13-6222]

Appeal: 13-6222

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6222

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME VAN BUREN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00253-H-1)

Submitted:

May 22, 2014

Before TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.

Chief

Decided: May 28, 2014

Judge,

and

HAMILTON

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Van Buren, 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.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6222

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jerome van Buren appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2)

Sentencing
finding

(2012),

Guidelines.

that

Amendment

based

The
750

on

district
had

no

Amendment
court
effect

750

denied
on

van

to

the

relief,
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 Buren 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, 2014 WL 956495 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2014).

Further, van

Buren’s Guidelines range was determined by his career offender
status.
2010).
fact

See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.
Finally, although Van Buren argued that the FSA did in

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, __ F.3d __, __ 2014 WL

1424468, at *1 (9th Cir. 2014).

2

Appeal: 13-6222

Doc: 15

Filed: 05/28/2014

Accordingly,

we

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3