US v. Reginald Edward

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed under CJA [998953958-2] Originating case number: 6:07-cr-00014-NKM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999010862]. Mailed to: Reginald Edwards. [12-7620]

Appeal: 12-7620

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/27/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7620

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD LEON EDWARDS, a/k/a Reginald L. Edwards,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:07-cr-00014-NKM-1)

Submitted:

December 20, 2012

Decided:

December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Leon Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Roanoke,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7620

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/27/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reginald

Leon

Edwards

appeals

the

district

court’s

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a
sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine
Sentencing Guidelines.

We review the district court’s decision

for abuse of discretion; however, “[w]e review de novo . . . a
court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under
§ 3582(c)(2).”
Cir. 2010).

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th

As the district court properly found, Edwards was

sentenced pursuant to the statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment and therefore is not eligible for a reduction via
§ 3582(c)(2).
of

a

crack

See id. at 187 (“[A] defendant who was convicted
offense

but

sentenced

pursuant

to

a

mandatory

statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2).”) (citing United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226,
235–36 (4th Cir. 2009)).

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court.

United States v. Edwards, No. 6:07-cr-00014-

NKM-1 (W.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2012).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
2