United States v. Albert Vines

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALBERT VINES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00397-D-1)

Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: March 31, 2026

Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Albert Vines appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. * We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of Vines’s motion. See United States v. Spruhan, 989 F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). The district court found Vines eligible for a sentence reduction, properly recalculated his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, and reasonably determined that Vines’s mitigating arguments were outweighed by the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the needs for punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and promoting respect for the law.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Vines, No. 5:17-

cr-00397-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2025). 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

*

Vines also moved for appointment of counsel. We deny that motion.