United States v. Trevon Cox

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 16, 2024
• Docket: 24-6433
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6433 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6433

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREVON LEONARD COX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00129-DJN-1)

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trevon Leonard Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Ray Simon, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6433 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Trevon Leonard Cox 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 § 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 Cox’s sentence for distribution of cocaine base,

but it declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

The district court reasonably explained that a sentence reduction was unwarranted in light

of Cox’s serious offense conduct, his criminal history and recidivism, and the need to

protect the public from drug trafficking.

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