Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06539/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06539-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oshawn Louis Copeland
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OSHAWN LOUIS COPELAND, a/k/a Lou,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:09-cr-00157-F-2)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oshawn Louis Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan,

Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6539 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Oshawn Louis Copeland appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). Generally, we review an order

denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). We 

review de novo, however, a district court’s determination of the 

scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. 

Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2015). 

Based on our review of the record and relevant legal 

authorities, we conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying Copeland’s motion, as it lacked authority to grant 

Copeland a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), despite the 

downward departure he received at sentencing. See U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual App. C, Amend. 759 (2011) (defining 

“applicable guideline range”); see also USSG § 1B1.10 

(prescribing rules of eligibility for sentence reduction). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

Appeal: 16-6539 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 2