US v. Kavin Williams
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00088-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032085]. Mailed to: Kavin Datron Williams FCI BUTNER MEDIUM I FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1000 Butner, NC 27509-0000. [16-7457]
Appeal: 16-7457
Doc: 9
Filed: 02/28/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7457
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAVIN DATRON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-D-1)
Submitted:
February 23, 2017
Decided:
February 28, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kavin Datron Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Shailika S. Kotiya,
William Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-7457
Doc: 9
Filed: 02/28/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kavin Datron Williams appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion based on the risk Williams poses to public safety.
United
States
v.
Smalls,
720
F.3d
193,
195
(4th
Cir.
See
2013)
(“Whether to reduce a sentence and to what extent is a matter
within
the
district
court’s
discretion.”)
Accordingly,
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
States
v.
2016).
legal
before
Williams,
No.
4:10-cr-00088-D-1
we
See United
(E.D.N.C.
Oct.
7,
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2
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?