Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Michael Jones, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Michael Edward Jones appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion because Amendment 750 did not change Jones' Guidelines sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no error in the denial of Jones' motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-01-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7828

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Michael Edward Jones appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion because Amendment 750 did not change Jones' Guidelines sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no error in the denial of Jones' motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    United States v. Michael Jones, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Edward Jones appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion because Amendment 750 did not change Jones' Guidelines sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no error in the denial of Jones' motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7828

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL EDWARD JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (3:96-cr-00123-GCM-1)

    Submitted:

    January 17, 2013

    Decided: January 23, 2013

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Edward Jones appeals a district court order
    denying

    his

    motion

    3582(c)(2)

    (2006).

    for

    a
    The

    sentence
    district

    reduction
    court

    under

    denied

    18

    U.S.C.

    the

    motion

    because the Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 750 did not result


    in a change to the Guidelines sentence.
    record and find no error.

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like