US v. Michael Majors, No. 12-7601 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7601 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL MAJORS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00192-JCC-1) Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 25, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Majors, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Majors appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010). We conclude that the district court properly determined that Majors was ineligible for a sentence reduction because the sentencing range for his crack cocaine offense was determined by the applicable statutory mandatory minimum, not a calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Majors, and thus was not impacted by Amendment 750. States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. See United 2010) ( [A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). ). the district court s order. Accordingly, we affirm See United States v. Majors, No. 1:09-cr-00192-JCC-1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 5, 2012). We grant Majors motion to seal the exhibit he submitted in conjunction with his informal appellate brief. 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.