United States v. Alvin Johnson

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Alvin Johnson

641 F. App'x 280

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 2016

Docket16-6019

StatusUnpublished

This text of 641 F. App'x 280 (United States v. Alvin Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Alvin Johnson, 641 F. App'x 280 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. * We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a larger reduction in Johnson’s sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir.2013) (standard of review); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B) (2015) (addressing appropriate factors to consider in ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not full resentencing); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-96 (4th Cir.2013) (recognizing that district court is presumed, absent contrary indication, to have considered relevant factors when ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Johnson, No. 3:13-cr-00110-HEH-1 (E.D.Va., Dec. 18, 2015). We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*

Although the district court granted Johnson’s motion, the reduction granted by the court was less than the reduction sought by Johnson.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. * We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a larger reduction in Johnson’s sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir.2013) (standard of review); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B) (2015) (addressing appropriate factors to consider in ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not full resentencing); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-96 (4th Cir.2013) (recognizing that district court is presumed, absent contrary indication, to have considered relevant factors when ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Johnson, No. 3:13-cr-00110-HEH-1 (E.D.Va., Dec. 18, 2015). We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*

Although the district court granted Johnson’s motion, the reduction granted by the court was less than the reduction sought by Johnson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 F. App'x 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alvin-johnson-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack