US v. Edward Gibb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999606450]. Mailed to: Edward Gibbs. [15-6149]

Appeal: 15-6149

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD CALVIN GIBBS, a/k/a Lep, a/k/a Little Calvin,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-5)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Calvin Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Newport News, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6149

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Edward

Calvin

Gibbs

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying Gibbs’ motion for a sentence reduction and its order
denying his motion for reconsideration.

We have reviewed the

record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion
(2012).

in
We

denying

therefore

district court.

relief
affirm

under
for

the

18

U.S.C.

reasons

§ 3582(c)(2)

stated

by

the

United States v. Gibbs, No. 4:09-cr-00063-RBS-

TEM-5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2014); see United States v. Munn, 595
F.3d

183,

186

Additionally,

we

reconsideration.

(4th
affirm

Cir.
the

2010)
district

(standard

of

review).

court’s

order

denying

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233,

236 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding district court lacks jurisdiction
to reconsider prior order on § 3582(c)(2) motion).

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

2