United States v. Coakley

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Coakley

671 F. App'x 219

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 20, 2016·No. No. 16-7165·Published

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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

Pincite

671 F. App'x 219 (United States v. Coakley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related