Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. Copeland, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Shawn Copeland's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling denying Copeland's motion for a reduction in sentence.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Copeland, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Shawn Copeland's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling denying Copeland's motion for a reduction in sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-03-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8168

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Shawn Copeland's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling denying Copeland's motion for a reduction in sentence.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Copeland, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Shawn Copeland's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling denying Copeland's motion for a reduction in sentence.

    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. 08-8168

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SHAWN COPELAND,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00163-HCM-2)

    Submitted:

    March 17, 2009

    Decided:

    March 20, 2009

    Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Shawn Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.


    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Appellee.

    Laura Marie Everhart,


    Norfolk,
    Virginia,
    for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Shawn
    denying

    his

    Copeland

    motion

    for

    appeals

    the

    reduction

    in

    district
    sentence

    courts
    pursuant

    order
    to

    18

    U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006).

    We have reviewed the record and

    find

    Accordingly,

    no

    reasons

    reversible

    district

    because

    the

    United

    the

    We

    argument

    court.

    for

    Copeland, No. 2:02-cr-00163-HCM-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2008).


    oral

    the

    affirm

    v.

    with

    by

    we

    States

    dispense

    stated

    error.

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like