US v. Martha Turner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:04-cr-30018-GEC-8. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999990790]. Mailed to: M. Turner. [16-6717]

Appeal: 16-6717

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTHA ANN TURNER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:04-cr-30018-GEC-8)

Submitted:

November 29, 2016

Decided:

December 20, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Lisa Marie Lorish,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Donald
R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6717

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Martha Ann Turner appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion under Amendment
782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the Guidelines
range for various drug offenses.

We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s ruling as to the scope
of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2).

United States v.

Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2015). Under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), p.s. (2015), a “court shall
not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than
the minimum of the amended guideline range determined [through
application

of

the

Sentencing

Amendment].”

In

addition,

a

reduction in a defendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized
under § 3582(c)(2) if an amendment listed in the Guidelines “is
applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the
effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range
because

of

provision.”

the

operation

of

another

guideline

or

statutory

Id. cmt. n.1(A).

Turner contends that her sentence was based on the drug
quantity table and not on her career offender designation, and
therefore she is eligible for a sentence reduction.

We conclude,

however, that Turner’s argument is directly foreclosed by comment
1(A) of USSG § 1B1.10.

Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered
2

Appeal: 16-6717

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

the offense levels applicable to drug offenses by two levels and
is retroactively applicable.

See USSG § 1B1.10(d), p.s.; USSG

app. C., amend. 782.

Thus, Amendment 782 would ordinarily apply

to Turner’s sentence.

However, Turner was also determined to be

a career offender, and her status as a career offender was not
affected by Amendment 782.

Because Amendment 782 “does not have

the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range
because

of

the

operation

of

another

guideline

or

statutory

provision,” USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A), the district court
did not err in ruling it could not reduce Turner’s sentence.
Turner

next

contends

that

applying

the

career

offender

offense level violates her due process rights because she had no
incentive to object to her characterization as a career offender
at

sentencing.

This

claim

lacks

merit.

Turner

received

a

sentencing hearing where she could have objected to her career
offender designation and thus was accorded due process. See Snider
Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, 146 (4th
Cir.

2014)

(procedural

due

process

“requires

fair

notice

of

impending state action and an opportunity to be heard”).
Finally,

Turner

contends

that

under

United

States

v.

Williams, 808 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2015), the district court had
authority to reduce her sentence.
Williams is inapposite.

We conclude, however, that

Turner’s situation does not involve

application of a mandatory minimum sentence, and consequently,
3

Appeal: 16-6717

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

Amendment 780, which is central to our decision in Williams, does
not apply.

Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err

in ruling that it could not grant Turner a sentence reduction.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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

4