US v. Joel Arti


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00091-D-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000057000]. Mailed to: Joel Devon Artis. [16-7583, 16-7584]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7583 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/06/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7583 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOEL DEVON ARTIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-7584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOEL DEVON ARTIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00091-D-1; 5:12-cr00342-D-1) Submitted: March 24, 2017 Decided: April 6, 2017 Appeal: 16-7583 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/06/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel Devon Artis, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Laura Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-7583 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/06/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Joel Devon Artis appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions to reduce his drug possession sentences in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court first stated that it lacked the discretion to reduce Artis’ sentences. Our subsequent decision in United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 437, 439 (4th Cir. 2016), undermines this conclusion. However, the district court alternately reasoned that, even if it had the discretion to lower Artis’ sentences, it would decline to do so in order to protect public safety and in view of Artis’ poor performance on supervision. We conclude that this alternate ruling does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 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?