US v. Jermal Daniel
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00103-RJC-DCK-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-7492]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:05-cr-00103-RJC-DCK-2)
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 3, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermal Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Jermal Daniels appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence 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 reduction in Daniels’ sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d
301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (providing review standard); 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 relevant
factors when ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. United States v. Daniels, No. 3:05-cr-00103-RJC-DCK-2 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 13,
2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
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?