US v. Eugene Small

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:96-cr-00131-RBS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999704668]. Mailed to: Eugene Smalls. [15-7065]

Appeal: 15-7065

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EUGENE SMALLS, a/k/a Gene Smalls, a/k/a Kishawnie Henry,
a/k/a Quickness,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:96-cr-00131-RBS-1)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7065

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Eugene Smalls appeals the district court’s order granting
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. *
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

United States v.

Smalls, No. 2:96-cr-00131-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. May 28, 2015); see
also United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-97, 199 (4th
Cir. 2013) (absent a contrary indication, there is a presumption
that district court, deciding a § 3582(c)(2) motion, considered
the relevant factors).

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

*

Although the district court granted Smalls’ § 3582 motion,
the reduction granted by the court did not reduce Smalls’
sentence to the full extent he requested.

2