United States v. Ricky Copeland ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICKY LEE COPELAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00035-REP-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lee Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Copeland appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative,
renewed motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Copeland, No. 3:10-cr-00035-REP-1 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2013); see
also United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2013)
(holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not provide means to apply Fair
Sentencing Act (“FSA”) minimums to defendants sentenced before
FSA’s effective date); United States v. Blewett, __ F.3d __,
2013 WL 6231727, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (en banc) (Nos.
12-5226, 12-5582) (vacating panel opinion and holding that
“(1) the Fair Sentencing Act’s new mandatory minimums do not
apply to defendants sentenced before it took effect;
(2) § 3582(c)(2) does not provide a vehicle for circumventing
that interpretation; and (3) the Constitution does not provide a
basis for blocking it”). We further deny Copeland’s request for
appointment of counsel.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3