Filed: Dec. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TOYON RASHAD JONES, JR., a/k/a Trouble, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00280-D-1) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 21, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TOYON RASHAD JONES, JR., a/k/a Trouble, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00280-D-1) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 21, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. To..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOYON RASHAD JONES, JR., a/k/a Trouble,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00280-D-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 21, 2018
Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Toyon Rashad Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Toyon Rashad Jones, Jr., 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. See United States v. Peters,
843 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2016)
(providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United
States v. Jones, No. 5:09-cr-00280-D-1 (E.D.N.C. July 31, 2018). 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