Filed: Jun. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7878 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL BERNARD COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00207-MHL-1) Submitted: June 26, 2020 Decided: June 30, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON and RICHARDSON Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Bernard
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7878 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL BERNARD COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00207-MHL-1) Submitted: June 26, 2020 Decided: June 30, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON and RICHARDSON Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Bernard C..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7878
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL BERNARD COLEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00207-MHL-1)
Submitted: June 26, 2020 Decided: June 30, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON and RICHARDSON Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Bernard Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Bernard Coleman appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for a
sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132
Stat. 5194, 5222, for clarification of his sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, and for
reconsideration. The district court correctly explained that, under § 404(c) of the First Step
Act, Coleman was not eligible for relief because his sentence was imposed under or
reduced in accordance with the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010. The district court also correctly explained why United States v.
Wirsing,
943 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2019), did not provide any basis for reconsideration of its
decision denying relief under the First Step Act. Finally, the district court correctly denied
Coleman’s motion to clarify his sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
2