Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06149/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Calvin Gibbs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD CALVIN GIBBS, a/k/a Lep, a/k/a Little Calvin,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-5)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Calvin Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, 

II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Newport News, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6149 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
PER CURIAM:

Edward Calvin Gibbs appeals the district court’s order 

denying Gibbs’ motion for a sentence reduction and its order 

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the 

record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2012). We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Gibbs, No. 4:09-cr-00063-RBSTEM-5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2014); see United States v. Munn, 595 

F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). 

Additionally, we affirm the district court’s order denying 

reconsideration. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 

236 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding district court lacks jurisdiction 

to reconsider prior order on § 3582(c)(2) motion). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2

Appeal: 15-6149 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 2