United States v. Coakley

671 F. App'x 219
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 20, 2016
DocketNo. 16-7165
StatusPublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 219 (United States v. Coakley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Coakley, 671 F. App'x 219 (4th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence D. Coakley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[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).”). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Munn
595 F.3d 183 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
671 F. App'x 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-coakley-ca4-2016.