Filed: Aug. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6574 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RANDY WESLEY JONES, a/k/a Shabba-J, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00004-D-1) Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6574 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RANDY WESLEY JONES, a/k/a Shabba-J, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00004-D-1) Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6574
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RANDY WESLEY JONES, a/k/a Shabba-J,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00004-D-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy Wesley Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy Wesley Jones appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions for sentence
reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel
and affirm the district court’s order. See United States v.
Jones, No. 5:12-cr-00004-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 2016). 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2