United States v. Jermal Daniels

683 F. App'x 227
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 3, 2017·No. 16-7492·Unpublished

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jermal Daniels appeals the district court’s order denying 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 reduction in Daniels’ sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (providing review standard); 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 re-sentencing); 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. Daniels, No. 3:05-cr-00103-RJC-DCK-2 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2016). 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

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

United States v. Jermal Daniels, 683 F. App'x 227 (4th Cir. 2017).

683 F. App'x 227 (United States v. Jermal Daniels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dillon v. United States
560 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court, 2010)
United States v. Robert Mann
709 F.3d 301 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Mitchell Smalls
720 F.3d 193 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)