Filed: Jan. 28, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLSHAWN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:02-cr-00244-HMH-13) Submitted: October 27, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willshawn Jones, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLSHAWN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:02-cr-00244-HMH-13) Submitted: October 27, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willshawn Jones, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLSHAWN JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:02-cr-00244-HMH-13) Submitted: October 27, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willshawn Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willshawn Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that the § 3582(c) motion was properly denied because Jones is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 cmt. n.10(D)(ii)(II) (2008). Accordingly, we find no reversible error and affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Jones, No. 7:02-cr-00244-HMH-13 (D.S.C. June 6, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2