US v. Leon Coleman
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:01-cr-00304-JFM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Leon Coleman FCI MCDOWELL FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1009 Welch, WV 24801. [16-7730]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
LEON COLEMAN, a/k/a Leon Walker, a/k/a Lee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00304-JFM-1)
Submitted: June 9, 2017
Decided: July 6, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leon Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Stephen Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Leon Coleman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) based on Amendment 782. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
A district court may reduce a prison sentence where the defendant “has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently
been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” and the reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).
Such a reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if an amendment listed in U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d) (2016) “does not have the effect of lowering
the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
“To determine whether a particular amendment has that effect, the sentencing
court must ‘substitute only the amendments’ rendered retroactive by the Commission and
‘leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.’” United States v. Williams,
808 F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting USSG 1B1.10(b)(1)). The first step is to
“determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the
defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been in effect
at the time the defendant was sentenced.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1); Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). “If the court determines that the prisoner is eligible for a
sentence reduction, the court moves to the second step and determines the extent of the
reduction.” Williams, 808 F.3d at 258. We review a district court’s decision under
Pg: 3 of 3
§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority de
novo. See id. at 256; United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013).
Coleman was sentenced based on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement
to the agreed-upon sentence of 360 months in prison. The parties further agreed that his
offense level was 43 pursuant to the murder Guideline and murder cross-reference in
USSG §§ 2A1.1, 2D1.1(d). Because he was not sentenced based on USSG § 2D1.1(c),
Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering his applicable Guidelines range, and
he was not eligible for a reduction. Additionally, his plea agreement did not provide for
him to be sentenced within a particular Guidelines range or to a specific prison term
within a particular Guidelines range. Therefore, he was also ineligible for a sentence
reduction because he was sentenced based on his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement rather
than based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission. See United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 276-77 (4th Cir. 2017).
We therefore 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?