Filed: Mar. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7766 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHON TERRELL PATTERSON, a/k/a Joe-Joe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-12) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7766 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHON TERRELL PATTERSON, a/k/a Joe-Joe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-12) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7766
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHON TERRELL PATTERSON, a/k/a Joe-Joe,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-12)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathon Terrell Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard
Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Asheville, North Carolina; John George Guise, Thomas A.
O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathon Terrell Patterson appeals the district court’s
order granting his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012) 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.
Patterson, No. 5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-12 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 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
* The district court granted Patterson’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion, but did not reduce his sentence to the full extent he
requested.
2