U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2013

United States v. Orlando Clement

United States v. Orlando Clement
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 22, 2013 · Kozinski, Canby, Tallman
723 F.3d 1028; 2013 WL 3781439; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14775 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

United States v. Orlando Clement

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A review of the record indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Appellant’s claims are foreclosed by United States v. Augustine, 712 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, appellee’s motion for summary affirmance is granted.

Appellant’s petition for initial hearing en banc is denied without prejudice to renewal as a petition for rehearing en banc. In United States v. Augustine, this court held that mandatory mínimums in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, did not apply in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceedings to defendants sentenced before the FSA was enacted. Id. at 1295. Since United States v. Augustine was decided, an inter-circuit split has emerged. See United States v. Blewett, Nos. 12-5226, 12-5582, 719 F.3d 482, 2013 WL 2121945 (6th Cir. May 17, 2013) (holding defendants sentenced prior to the enactment of the FSA are entitled to reductions).

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.