Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oshawn Louis COPELAND, a/k/a Lou, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 667 F. App'x 807
Docket Number: No. 16-6539
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oshawn Louis COPELAND, a/k/a Lou, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 807–808

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oshawn Louis COPELAND, a/k/a Lou, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6539
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2016
Decided: August 2, 2016
Oshawn Louis Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED