United States v. Anthony Andrews

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 2024
• Docket: 24-6513
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6513 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00030-D-3)

Submitted: October 10, 2024 Decided: October 16, 2024

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6513 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motions for a sentence reduction. “We review a district court’s decision

[whether] to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as

to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Mann, 709

F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Our review of the record reveals no error. The district court

clearly understood its authority to reduce Andrews’s sentence and recognized Andrews’s

postsentencing conduct, but the court declined to grant a reduction based on its review of

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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