US v. Lamont Parker, No. 14-6245 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6245 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMONT DELMAR PARKER, a/k/a Monster, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-BR-1) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Delmar Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamont Delmar Parker appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ( FSA ), which changed the statutory minimum sentences for crack offenses, and the attendant Sentencing Guidelines amendments. In denying relief on Parker s motion, the district court found that Amendment 750 had no effect on Parker s Guidelines range because he received a career offender sentence in October 2009. We affirm. The district court properly concluded that it lacked authority because offender to grant Parker s a Guidelines designation provisions. sentence and reduction range not was the under driven crack by cocaine § 3582(c)(2) his career Guidelines See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that the FSA does not apply retroactively to defendants sentenced prior to its August 3, 2010 effective date). Furthermore, our recent decision in United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1902 (2014), forecloses Parker s claim that the FSA s amendments to the relevant statutory scheme should be applied in his § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. 2 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. See United States v. Parker, No. 5:09 cr-00021 BR 1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2014). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
