Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-03142/USCOURTS-ca3-09-03142-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Coleman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

NO. 09-3142

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EDWARD COLEMAN,

a/k/a John Long

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. Cr. No. 04-cr-00097)

District Judge: Petrese B. Tucker

________________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 9, 2010

Before: BARRY, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 22, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Edward Coleman, proceeding pro se, appeals the order of the District Court

denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). For the

Case: 09-3142 Document: 003110067824 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010
2

following reasons, we will affirm.

I.

In 2004, Coleman was indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania on two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

and three counts of possession of a controlled substance. The indictment stemmed from

two unrelated arrests on June 13, 2003 and September 26, 2003. A jury found him guilty

of the three counts resulting from the June 13 arrest; he later pled guilty to the remaining

two counts. At sentencing, the base offense level for the firearm count was used, as it

was higher than that for the drug count. Because Coleman had a least two prior

convictions for drug or violent felonies, the base offense level was 24. His status as an

armed career offender increased the level to 33. The District Court sentenced him to 240

months of imprisonment, near the low end of the 235-to-293-month range. We affirmed

Coleman’s conviction and sentence. United States v. Coleman, 451 F.3d 154 (3d Cir.

2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1137 (2007).

Coleman filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in November 2007. The

District Court denied that motion in January 2009 and we denied his request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) in October 2009. In May 2009, while his request for

a COA was pending, Coleman filed a “Motion to Modify an Imposed Term of

Imprisonment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B)... predicated upon modifying statute

28 U.S.C. § 2255.” After giving Coleman notice pursuant to United States v. Miller, 197

Case: 09-3142 Document: 003110067824 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010
 Under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), a “serious drug offense” is one that carries “a 1

maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more.” 

3

F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999), the District Court denied the motion in June 2009. Coleman

timely appealed.

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a

district court’s determination that a defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction

pursuant to § 3582(c). See United States v. Sanchez, 562 F.3d 275, 277 & n.4 (3d Cir.

2009). 

III.

Coleman argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion for a reduction

of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). That section states that “the court

may modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly permitted

by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Coleman contends

that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the modifying statute that would authorize this Court to reduce

his sentence. 

Coleman claims that the sentencing court erred in classifying him as an armed

career offender. He argues that his prior convictions do not qualify as “serious drug

offenses” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) because they were for relatively small 1

quantities of narcotics. Nevertheless, the record shows that his prior convictions did

Case: 09-3142 Document: 003110067824 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2010
4

qualify as “serious drug offenses,” given that possession with the intent to distribute or

deliver cocaine carries a ten-year maximum sentence. 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(f)(1.1). 

The purpose of Coleman’s invocation of § 2255 is unclear. To the extent he is

seeking to overturn the conviction on which his career criminal status is predicated, §

3582 is not the appropriate vehicle to do so. Because he has already challenged his

present conviction and sentence via § 2255, he may not do so again without first

obtaining authorization from us. See §§ 2244, 2255. 

VI.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Case: 09-3142 Document: 003110067824 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/22/2010