Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD LEVI AVENT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00011-RAJ-1) Submitted: February 5, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD LEVI AVENT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00011-RAJ-1) Submitted: February 5, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7566
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD LEVI AVENT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:99-cr-00011-RAJ-1)
Submitted: February 5, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016
Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Levi Avent, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente,
Acting United States Attorney, Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Levi Avent appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, App. C.
Amend. 782 (2015). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error because Amendment 782 is not applicable to
sentences, such as Avent’s sentence, derived from the career
offender provisions in the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Avent, No. 2:99-cr-00011-RAJ-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 27,
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