US v. Larry Jones
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY CHARVELL JONES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00042-JPB-JES-2)
February 19, 2009
February 26, 2009
Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Larry Charvell Jones appeals a district court order granting in part and denying in party his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court
applied Amendment 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines to Jones' total denied offense Jones' level and reduced for a Jones' sentence We affirm. court did not abuse its sentence. below The the court
Guidelines range of imprisonment. We find the district
discretion in granting Jones' motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004)
(stating standard of review).
Insofar as Jones suggests the
court could have considered an even lower sentence below the Guidelines sentencing range, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, judge is 551 not F.3d 247, 257 to (4th Cir. a 2009) ("[A]
sentence below the amended guideline range."). Accordingly, sentence reduction. facts and legal before we affirm the order granting Jones a
We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
contentions the court
decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?