US v. Kevin Johnson

Filing 920090610

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6240 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN RODELL JOHNSON, a/k/a Chucky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00319-1) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 10, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Rodell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Tracy Doherty-McCormick, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Rodell Johnson appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction filed under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006). We affirm. The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines and the amendments are reviewed de novo. reviewed for clear error. Factual findings are See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d This court reviews the denial of a 481, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1995). motion for a reduction in the sentence under 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. (4th Cir. 2004). We find the district court did not err in concluding that at sentencing Johnson was held responsible for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. Thus, he was not eligible for a Accordingly, we affirm Johnson's motion for United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 sentence reduction under Amendment 706. the district court's order. We deny appointment of counsel. 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

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?