Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    United States v. Reginald Edwards, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Reginald Leon Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction based on a guideline amendment for crack cocaine offenses. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Edwards was sentenced pursuant to a statutory mandatory minimum term and was therefore ineligible for a reduction. 3) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the scope of the district court's legal authority de novo and found that it properly concluded Edwards was not eligible for a reduction under the statute.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Reginald Edwards, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    1) Reginald Leon Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction based on a guideline amendment for crack cocaine offenses. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Edwards was sentenced pursuant to a statutory mandatory minimum term and was therefore ineligible for a reduction. 3) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the scope of the district court's legal authority de novo and found that it properly concluded Edwards was not eligible for a reduction under the statute.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-12-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7620

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Reginald Leon Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction based on a guideline amendment for crack cocaine offenses. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Edwards was sentenced pursuant to a statutory mandatory minimum term and was therefore ineligible for a reduction. 3) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the scope of the district court's legal authority de novo and found that it properly concluded Edwards was not eligible for a reduction under the statute.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Reginald Edwards, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Reginald Leon Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction based on a guideline amendment for crack cocaine offenses. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Edwards was sentenced pursuant to a statutory mandatory minimum term and was therefore ineligible for a reduction. 3) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the scope of the district court's legal authority de novo and found that it properly concluded Edwards was not eligible for a reduction under the statute.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald

    Leon

    Edwards

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    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 courts decision

    for abuse of discretion; however, [w]e review de novo . . . a


    courts 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

    crack

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


    offense

    but

    sentenced

    pursuant

    to

    mandatory

    statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under


    3582(c)(2).) (citing United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226,
    23536 (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

    You might also like