Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald Leon EDWARDS, a/k/a Reginald L. Edwards, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-27
Citations: 502 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 12-7620
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald Leon EDWARDS, a/k/a Reginald L. Edwards, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 502
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald Leon EDWARDS, a/k/a Reginald L. Edwards, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7620.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.
Reginald Leon Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Leon Edwards appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. We review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion; however, "[w]e review de novo . a court's conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2)." United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010). As the district court properly found, Edwards was sentenced pursuant to the statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and therefore is not eligible for a reduction via § 3582(c)(2). See id. at 187 ("[A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).") (citing United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir.2009)). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Edwards, No. 6:07-cr-00014-NKM-l (W.D.Va. Sept. 11, 2012).
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.