Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TRAVIS DELL JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00040-JPJ-1) Submitted: October 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TRAVIS DELL JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00040-JPJ-1) Submitted: October 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. La..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS DELL JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00040-JPJ-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. Anthony P. Giorno, United States Attorney, Jean B.
Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Dell Jones appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction. We generally review an order granting or denying a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Goines,
357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). We review
de novo, however, a district court’s determination of the scope
of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2009). We have thoroughly reviewed
the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that
the district court did not err in denying Jones’ motion for a
sentence reduction. We therefore 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
2