US v. Adrian Benniefield, No. 12-7327 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ADRIAN LAMONT BENNIEFIELD, a/k/a Adrian Benniefield, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00055-HEH-1) Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adrian Lamont Benniefield, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adrian Lamont Benniefield appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111220, 124 Stat. 2372 ( FSA ). We review for abuse of discretion a on district court s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a court s conclusion on the scope of United States its v. legal Munn, authority 595 F.3d 183, under 186 that provision. (4th Cir. 2010). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Benniefield pled guilty to one count of distribution of fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). of Benniefield was sentenced in 2009 to the statutory mandatory minimum term of 120 months imprisonment. Benniefield s sentence In 2011, the district court reduced to ninety-six months imprisonment pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). The FSA reduced the mandatory applicable to certain cocaine base offenses. minimum sentences If Benniefield had been sentenced under the FSA, he would not have been subject to the 120-month mandatory minimum, and the Guidelines amendment could months. reduce his United amended States Guidelines v. Stewart, 2 range 595 below F.3d ninety-six 197, 201-04 (4th Cir. 2010). Benniefield, however, originally was sentenced before the enactment of the FSA. the FSA does Benniefield, States v. not apply were retroactively sentenced Bullard, before 645 F.3d 237, denied, 132 S. Ct. 356 (2011). sentencing reduction Benniefield is eligible benefit revised to penalty not We previously have held that in provisions offenders its who, enactment. 246-49 (4th like United Cir.), cert. Nor does Benniefield s post-FSA 2011 within from to alter the class the FSA. do not our of conclusion offenders Thus, apply because to that who the are FSA s Benniefield, the district court properly rejected his argument that Guidelines Amendment 750 could further reduce his sentence. Accordingly, We dispense with oral we affirm argument the district because the court s facts and order. legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
