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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Alvin Johnson. [16-6019]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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
March 17, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Alvin Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting
reduction under Amendment 782. *
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
§ 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
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Dec. 18, 2015).
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.
Pg: 3 of 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?