United States v. Shammohd Ballah

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-6804
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6804 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6804

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAMMOHD JAMEIL BALLAH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00070-WO-1)

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

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shammohd Jameil Ballah, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6804 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Shammohd Jameil Ballah appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Part A of Amendment 821 to the

Sentencing Guidelines. The district court concluded that Ballah was eligible for relief but

declined to reduce his sentence based on its assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

and Ballah’s postsentencing conduct. We may not reweigh those factors, and we find no

abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that Ballah’s failure to follow the rules

of the prison, the seriousness of his offense and his four disciplinary infractions, and his

inability to accept responsibility counseled against granting a sentence reduction. See

United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard). Accordingly,

we deny Ballah’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s

judgment. ∗ United States v. Ballah, No. 1:20-cr-00070-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. June 4, 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

∗ Ballah requests that we place his appeal in abeyance for a potential amendment to the firearm Guidelines. We deny that request, as Ballah may file a new § 3582(c)(2) motion in the event that his Guidelines range is further reduced.