The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-6149•United States of America v. Edward Calvin Gibbs, a/k/a Lep, a/k/a Little Calvin
15-6149Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 22, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6149
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD CALVIN GIBBS, a/k/a Lep, a/k/a Little Calvin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-5)
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Calvin Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Newport News, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
PER CURIAM:
Edward Calvin Gibbs appeals the district court’s order
denying Gibbs’ motion for a sentence reduction and its order
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012). We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Gibbs, No. 4:09-cr-00063-RBS-
TEM-5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2014); see United States v. Munn, 595
F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
Additionally, we affirm the district court’s order denying
reconsideration. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233,
236 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding district court lacks jurisdiction
to reconsider prior order on § 3582(c)(2) motion). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.