US v. Duvell Everett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00001-REP-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998939150]. Mailed to: Duvall Everett. [12-6707]

Appeal: 12-6707

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/17/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DUVELL MOZART EVERETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00001-REP-1)

Submitted:

September 10, 2012

Decided:

September 17, 2012

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duvell Mozart Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Norval George Metcalf,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6707

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/17/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Duvell

Mozart

Everett

appeals

the

district

court’s

order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a
sentence reduction.

We review an order granting or denying a

§ 3582 motion for a sentence reduction for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010)
(citing United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir.
2004)).
bases

its

“A district court abuses its discretion if it . . .
exercise

legal premise.”

of

discretion

on

an

erroneous

factual

or

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323

(4th Cir. 2008) (citing James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th
Cir.

1993)).

We

have

thoroughly

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
rejecting Everett’s arguments for a reduction greater than that
awarded.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2