UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8027
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICKY LEE COPELAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge.
(3:10-cr-00035-REP-1)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lee Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Copeland appeals the district court’s order
denying Copeland’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a
sentence reduction. On appeal, Copeland argues that, under the
Supreme Court’s decision in Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct.
2321 (2012), the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub. L.
No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, should apply to all defendants
seeking sentence reductions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
based on the crack cocaine Guidelines amendments. Contrary to
Copeland’s assertion, however, Dorsey did not alter this court’s
prior holding that the FSA does not apply retroactively to
defendants sentenced prior to its effective date. * See United
States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
132 S. Ct. 356 (2011). Because Copeland was sentenced prior to
the FSA’s effective date, Dorsey had no effect on Copeland’s
mandatory minimum sentence, and the district court properly
concluded that he was not entitled to a sentence reduction on
this basis. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
*
Moreover, to the extent Copeland asks us to reconsider
this prior holding, “a panel of this court cannot overrule,
explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of
this court.” United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3
(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations
omitted).
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3