US v. Paul Coleman, No. 10-5218 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 8, 2011.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5218 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL BERNARD COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 10-5313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL BERNARD COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 11-9604) Submitted: November 26, 2012 Decided: December 5, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig W. Sampson, Sr., BARNES & DIEHL, PC, Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, N. George Metcalf, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: A federal jury convicted Paul Bernard Coleman of two counts of possession ( crack ), in with violation intent of 21 to distribute U.S.C. ยง 841(a) cocaine base (2006). On December 20, 2010, the district court sentenced Coleman to the statutory imprisonment. On appeal, this court affirmed the district court s judgment. See United mandatory States v. minimum Coleman, term 445 of F. life App x 642 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). Subsequently, in Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), the Supreme Court determined that the Fair Sentencing Act ( FSA ) applies to defendants who committed their offenses prior to the effective date of the Act, August 3, 2010, but were sentenced after that date. 2326-36. Id. at The Court then granted Coleman s petition for a writ of certiorari and remanded the appeal to this court based on Dorsey. As Coleman was sentenced after the effective date of the FSA, we affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence and remand Dorsey. legal to the district court for resentencing in light of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
