Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgar Joe COFER, III, also known as Little Joe, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-04
Citations: 400 F. App'x 912
Docket Number: No. 08-10329
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgar Joe COFER, III, also known as Little Joe, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, BENAVIDES and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 912–913

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgar Joe COFER, III, also known as Little Joe, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10329
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 4, 2010.
Cody Lee Skipper, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lubbock, TX, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edgar Joe Cofer, III, Federal Medical Center Houston Unit, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, BENAVIDES and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Joe Cofer, III, federal prisoner # 28746-177, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack; he is serving a 240-month prison sentence. Before this court is Cofer's appeal of the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Cofer contends that the district court erred by denying his motion based on its conclusion that he posed a threat to public safety, as evidenced by the enhancement he received to his base offense level due to his leadership role. In addition, he contends that a reduction in sentence was merited because he has behaved well in prison and availed himself of programs offered there.
These arguments do not suffice to show that the district court abused its discretion in connection with its denial of Cofer's § 3582(c) motion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.