United States v. Joseph Polk

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-6732
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6732 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH MATTHEW POLK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cr-00283-JFA-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Matthew Polk, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6732 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Matthew Polk appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. “We review a district court’s decision

[whether] to reduce a sentence under [18 U.S.C.] § 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

court clearly understood its authority to reduce Polk’s sentence, and correctly determined

that Polk was eligible for a reduction based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing

Guidelines, 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