US v. Ricky Copeland, No. 12-8027 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8027 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RICKY LEE COPELAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00035-REP-1) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Lee Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Lee Copeland appeals the district court s order denying Copeland s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, Copeland argues that, under the Supreme Court s decision in Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ( FSA ), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, should apply to all defendants seeking sentence reductions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the crack cocaine Guidelines amendments. Contrary to Copeland s assertion, however, Dorsey did not alter this court s prior holding that the FSA does not apply retroactively defendants sentenced prior to its effective date. * to See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 356 (2011). Because Copeland was sentenced prior to the FSA s effective date, Dorsey had no effect on Copeland s mandatory minimum sentence, and the district court properly concluded that he was not entitled to a sentence reduction on this basis. judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and * Moreover, to the extent Copeland asks us to reconsider this prior holding, a panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court. United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 2 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
