US v. Alvin Johnson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999747294-2] Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00110-HEH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999779260]. Mailed to: Alvin Johnson. [16-6019]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6019 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVIN JOHNSON, a/k/a Dawg, a/k/a Dog, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cr-00110-HEH-1) Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6019 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Alvin Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) reduction under Amendment 782. * motion for a sentence We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a larger reduction in Johnson’s sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B) (2015) (addressing appropriate factors to consider in ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-27 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not full resentencing); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that district court is presumed, absent contrary indication, to have considered motion). United factors when ruling on § 3582(c)(2) Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. States v. Dec. 18, 2015). counsel. relevant Johnson, No. 3:13-cr-00110-HEH-1 (E.D. Va., We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and * Although the district court granted Johnson’s motion, the reduction granted by the court was less than the reduction sought by Johnson. 2 Appeal: 16-6019 legal before Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016 contentions this court Pg: 3 of 3 are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?