Opinion
No. 7:07-CR-86-D No. 7:10-CV-177-D
07-30-2013
MICHAEL KENTA DAVIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed Michael Kenta Davis's ("Davis") pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [D.E. 52]. On March 9, 2012, Davis filed a pro se motion to alter the judgment [D.E. 55]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). On March 13, 2012, Davis filed a pro se motion for a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), relying on Amendments 750 and 759 to the Sentencing Guidelines [D.E. 56]. On June 7, 2013, the government responded in opposition to the motion to alter judgment [D.E. 60].
Davis's motion to alter the judgment is denied. He has failed to meet the governing standard. See, e.g., Zinkland v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir. 1998).
Davis's motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and Amendments 750 and 759 to the Guidelines is denied. Davis is a career offender. See PSR ¶¶ 16, 25, 26, 30, 55; United States v. Davis, 305 F. App'x 62, 63-64 (4th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished). Thus, he is not entitled to relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and Amendments 750 and 759 to the Guidelines. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691 (2010); United States v. Ervin, No. 13-6354, 2013 WL 3616035, at *1 (4th Cir. July 16, 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Barnes, No. 13-6681, 2013 WL 2996544, at *1 (4th Cir. June 18, 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Staton, No. 12-8101, 2013 WL 2480216, at *1 (4th Cir. June 11, 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v.Lewis, No. 13-6227,2013 WL 1800396,at*l (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Rogers, No. 12-4053, 2013 WL 518609, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 13, 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); United States v. Rashaad, No. 3:01crl95, 2012 WL 4758271, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), aff'd, 512 F. App'x 294 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Quarles, 889 F. Supp. 2d 783, 787-88 (E.D. Va. 2012); see also United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152,154-55 (3d Cir. 2009); United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789,791 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); United States v. Broadwater, 613 F. Supp. 2d 740, 742-45 (E.D.N.C. 2009). In light of this conclusion, the court declines the government's invitation to hold Davis's section 3582(c) motion in abeyance. See [D.E. 61].
In sum, Davis's motions [D.E. 55, 56] are DENIED, and the government's motion to extend time [D.E. 62] is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability as to the motion to alter the judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The clerk shall close the case.
_____________
JAMES C. DEVER III
Chief United States District Judge