USA v. Rodney Smith

Filing

OPINION filed : Our decision in Blewett governs the disposition of this appeal, and we AFFIRM the district court s denial of Appellant s motion based on our reasoning in Blewett, decision not for publication. Alice M. Batchelder, Chief Circuit Judge; Eugene E. Siler , Jr., Circuit Judge and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judge.

Case: 13-5162

Document: 41-2

Filed: 08/07/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0609n.06
No. 13-5162

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Aug 07, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RODNEY MONCRIEF SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; SILER and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Appellant Rodney Moncrief Smith appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Appellant contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based on the new
mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine offenders contained in the Fair Sentencing Act
of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (“FSA”). He also argues that failing to apply the
FSA’s lowered minimum sentence violates his constitutional right to equal protection of the law
and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. In United States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d
647 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1779 (2014), we held that the FSA’s new
mandatory minimums do not apply retroactively, see id. at 649, and that their prospective
application does not violate an individual’s right to equal protection of the law or his right to be

Case: 13-5162

Document: 41-2

Filed: 08/07/2014

Page: 2

13-5162
USA v. Rodney Moncrief Smith

free from cruel and unusual punishment, see id. at 658–60. Our decision in Blewett governs the
disposition of this appeal, and we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion
based on our reasoning in Blewett.

2