US v. Ricky Copeland, No. 13-7055 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RICKY LEE COPELAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00035-REP-1) Submitted: January 13, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, renewed motion for a § 3582(c)(2) (2012). reversible error. reasons stated by sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the the district court. United States v. Copeland, No. 3:10-cr-00035-REP-1 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2013); see also United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not provide means to apply Fair Sentencing Act ( FSA ) minimums to defendants sentenced before FSA s effective date); United States v. Blewett, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 6231727, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (en banc) (Nos. 12-5226, 12-5582) (vacating panel opinion and holding that (1) the Fair Sentencing Act s new mandatory minimums do not apply to defendants sentenced before it took effect; (2) § 3582(c)(2) does not provide a vehicle for circumventing that interpretation; and (3) the Constitution does not provide a basis for blocking it ). We further deny Copeland s request for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.