US v. Oshawn Copeland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00157-F-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999902493]. Mailed to: Oshawn Copeland. [16-6539]

Appeal: 16-6539

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OSHAWN LOUIS COPELAND, a/k/a Lou,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00157-F-2)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oshawn Louis Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.
Tobin Webb Lathan,
Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6539

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Oshawn Louis Copeland appeals the district court’s order
denying

his

motion

for

a

sentence

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).
denying

a

§ 3582(c)(2)

reduction

pursuant

to

Generally, we review an order

motion

for

abuse

of

discretion.

See

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

We

review de novo, however, a district court’s determination of the
scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2).

United States v.

Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2015).
Based

on

our

review

of

the

record

and

relevant

legal

authorities, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying

Copeland’s

motion,

as

it

lacked

authority

to

grant

Copeland a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), despite the
downward

departure

he

received

at

sentencing.

See

U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual App. C, Amend. 759 (2011) (defining
“applicable

guideline

(prescribing

rules

of

range”);
eligibility

see
for

also

USSG

§ 1B1.10

sentence

reduction).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

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