Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7336 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMION L. JONES, a/k/a Bootsie, a/k/a Bootsy, a/k/a Damion Leniel Jones, a/k/a Damion Leaniel Jones, a/k/a Damion Leneil Jones, a/k/a Damion Dee, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00152-MSD-DEM-1) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7336 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMION L. JONES, a/k/a Bootsie, a/k/a Bootsy, a/k/a Damion Leniel Jones, a/k/a Damion Leaniel Jones, a/k/a Damion Leneil Jones, a/k/a Damion Dee, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00152-MSD-DEM-1) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7336
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMION L. JONES, a/k/a Bootsie, a/k/a Bootsy, a/k/a Damion
Leniel Jones, a/k/a Damion Leaniel Jones, a/k/a Damion
Leneil Jones, a/k/a Damion Dee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:12-cr-00152-MSD-DEM-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damion L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damion L. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Jones, No. 2:12-cr-00152-MSD-
DEM-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2015). 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