USA v. Stephon Mundy
Per Curiam OPINION filed : the district court's order is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Boyce F. Martin , Jr. and Helene N. White, Circuit Judges; Peter C. Economus, U.S. District Judge (ND OH). *The citation number of this opinion has been corrected; the correct citation number is 12a1093n.06. --[Edited 10/23/2012 by CL]
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a1093n.06
Oct 22, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
Before: MARTIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; ECONOMUS, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Stephon Mundy, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals a district court’s order
granting his motion to reduce his sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Mundy pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (count one), possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (count two), and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (count four). The district court sentenced Mundy on August 25, 2005, to 151
months of imprisonment for counts one and two; sixty months of imprisonment on count four (to
run consecutive to the 151 months); and ten years of supervised release. We affirmed Mundy’s
convictions on direct appeal. United States v. Douglas, 242 F. App’x 324, 326 (6th Cir. 2007).
The Honorable Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District Judge for the Northern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
-2In August 2008, in light of a retroactive change in the United States Sentencing Guidelines,
the district court sua sponte reduced Mundy’s sentence to 121 months of imprisonment on counts
one and two, plus the sixty consecutive months on count four. In October 2011, Mundy filed a letter
with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The district court
construed the letter as a section 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce Mundy’s sentence, summarily granted
the motion, and reduced Mundy’s sentence to 120 months of imprisonment on counts one and two,
the applicable statutory mandatory minimum, plus the sixty consecutive months previously imposed
for count four.
On appeal, Mundy argues that the district court should have applied the Fair Sentencing Act
of 2010, Pub. L. No. 11-220, 124 Stat. 2372, retroactively to his case, thereby lowering the
applicable statutory minimum.
The district court’s order is reviewed de novo. United States v. Hameed, 614 F.3d 259,
261–62 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323, 327 (6th Cir. 2010). The Act became
effective August 3, 2010, and raised the threshold amounts of crack cocaine needed to trigger
imposition of certain statutory mandatory minimum sentences. See, e.g., United States v. Carradine,
621 F.3d 575, 580 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1706 (2011). However, we have
repeatedly rejected the assertion that the Act applies retroactively to sentences imposed prior to the
Act’s effective date. See, e.g., United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453, 475 (6th Cir. 2011), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 1042 (2012); Carradine, 621 F.3d at 580.
The Supreme Court recently held that the Act applies to all offenders sentenced after the
Act’s effective date, even if their crimes were committed prior to that date. See Dorsey v. United
States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2331 (2012). Mundy does not dispute that his sentence was imposed prior
-3to the Act’s effective date. Accordingly, he has not shown that the district court erred in declining
to apply the Act.
The district court’s order is affirmed.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?