United States of America v. Katrina Gould, a/k/a Trina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6965
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KATRINA GOULD, a/k/a Trina,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00087-FDW-8)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katrina Gould, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Katrina Gould appeals the district court’s order
denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence. This provision permits modification of a
defendant’s term of imprisonment when such term is “based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission,” in accordance with the Commission’s
statutory authority to review and revise the Sentencing
Guidelines. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 994(o) (2006)). Gould’s
sentence, however, was not based on a sentencing range lowered
by the Sentencing Commission, but, rather, was premised on
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) and 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006), in
conformity with the ten-year mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment therein prescribed at the time she committed the
offense of conviction. Prior to Gould’s guilty plea and
sentencing, § 841 was amended to increase the threshold
quantities of certain controlled substances triggering specific
mandatory minimums. Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No.
111-220, 124 Stat. 2372. Gould, however, pursued no direct
appeal.
Section 3582(c)(2), which, by its terms, is limited to
modifications for sentences based on ranges lowered by the
Sentencing Guidelines, is not the appropriate vehicle to seek
relief from a mandatory minimum sentence imposed by statute.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010)
(“[A] defendant who was convicted of a [cocaine base] offense
but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence
is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying
Gould’s motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --