Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Eric Martin Van Buren, Petitioner v. United States

APPENDIX A

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ERIC MARTIN VANBUREN, Defendant

Appellant.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

699 Fed. Appx. 253; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20945

No. 17-6897

October 19, 2017, Submitted

October 24, 2017, Decided

-

-

Notice:

PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING

THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Editorial Information: Prior History

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.

(3:00-cr-00066-NKM-1). Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge.United States v. Van Buren, 190 Fed.

Appx. 257, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 17860 (4th Cir., July 14, 2006)

Disposition:

AFFIRMED.

Eric Martin Van Buren, Appellant, Pro Se.

Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Counsel

Opinion

{699 Fed. Appx. 2531 PER CURIAM:

Eri c Martin VanBuren appeals the district court's orders denying his most recent attempts for a

sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny VanBuren's self-styled motion for leave to file a Rule (d) motion and affirm the district courts

orders. See United States v. VanBuren, No. 3:00-cr-00066-NKM-1 (W.D. Va. June 27, 2017 & July

6, 2017). 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

CIRHOT

© 2018 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the

restrictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.

APPENDIX B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE No. 3:00—cr-00066-001

V.

ERIC MARTIN VAN BUREN,

I

JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

Defendant.

Eric Martin Van Buren, pro Se, has filed yet another in a long line of motions to vacate or

reduce his life sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

See dkt. 11.8 at 1-2 (detailing

numerous post-conviction motions by Van Buren)). The instant motion (dkt. 129), like his direct

appeal and several prior motions, asserts that the evidence was insufficient to establish a drug

quantity large enough to support his sentence. The Fourth Circuit squarely rejected this position:

The threshold amount of crack cocaine required for the imposition of a base

offense level of 38 is 1.5 kilograms. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.l(c)(1). The testimony

at trial was sufficient to support a factual finding attributing far more than

1.5 kilograms to VanBuren. Richard Shirley, who sold crack cocaine in the

Culpeper area, testified that VanBuren supplied him with large quantities of

crack-usually between one-half kilogram and one kilogram-on a weekly basis

for nearly three years. Roy Samuels indicated that VanBuren fronted him crack

on a regular basis for approximately one year; Samuels estimated that

VanBuren supplied him with a total of four or five kilograms over the course

of that year. Another crack dealer, Paul Brwn, testified that he generally

received from VanBuren one-half kilogram of crack every three to four days

over a two-year period. This was just part of the evidence supporting the

district court's findings of fact that put VanBuren far in excess of the 1.5

kilograms of crack necessary to trigger the application of a base offense level of

38.

United States v. Van Buren, 97 F. App'x 419, 423 (4th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added); see United

States v. Van Buren, 190 F. App'x 257, 259 (4th Cir. 2006) (reaching same conclusion based on

"overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted evidence" after remand from Supreme Court).

Indeed, just last year, this Court twice rejected the same type of argument Van Buren

now makes and has been unsuccessfully making for. Years, (see dkt. 118 (Opinion), 121 (Order

Denying Motion for Reconsideration)), and the Fourth Circuit—for at least the third time—

affirmed this Court's ruling. (Dkt. 126).1

Thevefore, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Order to all

counsel of record.

Entered this 27th day of June, 2017.

NNKMOON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AiTUE COPY T9TE:

RK

Setting aside the patent frivolity of Van Buren's motion—which he styles as a motion

under 1.8 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(2) to reduce his sentence—it is simply a collateral attack on his

conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court has been generous in opining on the so-called

"merits" of Van Buren's flurry of motions, thus allowing him to avoid the procedural bar in §

2255(h) for second or successive habeas petitions. (See dkt. 118 at 2 & n.2 (discussing why prior

motion failed while also noting it did not satisfy procedural bar)). The Court's indulgence of

Van Buren on this point has now worn thin.

-2-

CLERICS OFFICE U.S, DtSr COURT

AT CHARLO1TESVILE VA

FILED

JUL 06201?

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

M

13

EP

CHARLOTrESVILLE DIVISION

'

LERK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE No. 3:00-cr40066---001

V.

ORDER

ERIC MARTIN VAN BUREN,

JUDGE- NORMAN K. MOON

Defendant.

Eric Martin Van Buren, pro Se, recently filed a motion to change his sentence (dkt. 129),

which the Court denied as frivolous. (Dkt. 131). Van Buren apparently sent two copies of his

motion, the second of which was docketed as a separate motion. (Dkt. 130). For the reasons

stated in the Court's previous order, the second iteration of Van Buren's motion is DENIED.

(See dkt. 131).

The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Order to all

counsel of record.

Entered this

day of

2017.

NORMAN K. Moo'N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:00-cr-00066-NKM Document 132 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 1 Pageid#: 441

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix C- Order of denial of Rehearing and En banc by United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 17-6897, U.S. Eric Van

Buren, filed December 11, 2017. (See hereto arrached).

(ii)

APPENDIX C

Appeal: 17-6897

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/11/2017

Pg: 1 of 1

FILED: December 11, 2017

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6897

(3 :OO-cr-00066-NKIVI- 1)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff Appellee

-

V.

ERIC MARTIN VANBUREN

Defendant Appellant

-

ORDER

The court denies the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. No judge

requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35 on the petition for rehearing en banc.

Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Niemeyer, Judge Motz, and Judge

King.

For the Court

Is! Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

Additional material

from this filing is

avai lable in the

Clerk's Office.