US v. Jeffrey Joyner


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00078-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000044034]. Mailed to: Jeffrey Joyner. [16-7594]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7594 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7594 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY BERNARD JOYNER, Defendant -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. (4:11-cr-00078-D-1) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 17, 2017 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Bernard Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7594 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Bernard Joyner appeals the district court’s order denying Joyner’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2014). 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 Joyner poses to public safety. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Whether to reduce a sentence and to what extent is a matter within the court’s discretion.”). Accordingly, affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. we See United States v. Joyner, No. 4:11-cr-00078-D-1 (E.D.N.C. filed Nov. 11, 2016; entered Nov. 14, 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 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?