United States v. Samuel Jenrette

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-6483
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6483 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6483

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL ELIJAH JENRETTE, a/k/a Sammy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00293-D-1)

Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 16, 2025

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Elijah Jenrette, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-6483 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Elijah Jenrette appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the

Sentencing Guidelines. “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. Specifically, while the court

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

postsentencing conduct, it ultimately 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. United States v. Jenrette,

No. 5:21-cr-00293-D-1 (E.D.N.C. May 7, 2024). 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