United States of America v. Martha Ann Turner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6717
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTHA ANN TURNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:04-cr-30018-GEC-8)
Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Lisa Marie Lorish,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Donald
R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Martha Ann Turner appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion under Amendment
782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the Guidelines
range for various drug offenses. We affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s ruling as to the scope
of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v.
Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2015). Under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), p.s. (2015), a “court shall
not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than
the minimum of the amended guideline range determined [through
application of the Sentencing Amendment].” In addition, a
reduction in a defendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized
under § 3582(c)(2) if an amendment listed in the Guidelines “is
applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the
effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range
because of the operation of another guideline or statutory
provision.” Id. cmt. n.1(A).
Turner contends that her sentence was based on the drug
quantity table and not on her career offender designation, and
therefore she is eligible for a sentence reduction. We conclude,
however, that Turner’s argument is directly foreclosed by comment
1(A) of USSG § 1B1.10. Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered

-- 2 of 4 --

3
the offense levels applicable to drug offenses by two levels and
is retroactively applicable. See USSG § 1B1.10(d), p.s.; USSG
app. C., amend. 782. Thus, Amendment 782 would ordinarily apply
to Turner’s sentence. However, Turner was also determined to be
a career offender, and her status as a career offender was not
affected by Amendment 782. Because Amendment 782 “does not have
the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range
because of the operation of another guideline or statutory
provision,” USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A), the district court
did not err in ruling it could not reduce Turner’s sentence.
Turner next contends that applying the career offender
offense level violates her due process rights because she had no
incentive to object to her characterization as a career offender
at sentencing. This claim lacks merit. Turner received a
sentencing hearing where she could have objected to her career
offender designation and thus was accorded due process. See Snider
Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, 146 (4th
Cir. 2014) (procedural due process “requires fair notice of
impending state action and an opportunity to be heard”).
Finally, Turner contends that under United States v.
Williams, 808 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2015), the district court had
authority to reduce her sentence. We conclude, however, that
Williams is inapposite. Turner’s situation does not involve
application of a mandatory minimum sentence, and consequently,

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Amendment 780, which is central to our decision in Williams, does
not apply. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err
in ruling that it could not grant Turner a sentence reduction.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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

-- 4 of 4 --