US v. Alvin Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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