Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee COPELAND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-28
Citations: 553 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 13-7055
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee COPELAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee COPELAND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7055.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 28, 2014.
Ricky Lee Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantial ly for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Copeland, No. 3:10-cr-00085-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") míni-mums to defendants sentenced before FSA's effective date); United States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d 647, 650-51, 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 mín-imums 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.