Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    United States v. Travis Jones, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Travis Dell Jones appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and affirmed the denial. The appellate court concluded the district court did not err in finding it did not have the authority to reduce Jones' sentence under § 3582(c)(2). It therefore affirmed the district court's order without requiring oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Travis Jones, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    Travis Dell Jones appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and affirmed the denial. The appellate court concluded the district court did not err in finding it did not have the authority to reduce Jones' sentence under § 3582(c)(2). It therefore affirmed the district court's order without requiring oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-11-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6652

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Travis Dell Jones appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and affirmed the denial. The appellate court concluded the district court did not err in finding it did not have the authority to reduce Jones' sentence under § 3582(c)(2). It therefore affirmed the district court's order without requiring oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Travis Jones, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Travis Dell Jones appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and affirmed the denial. The appellate court concluded the district court did not err in finding it did not have the authority to reduce Jones' sentence under § 3582(c)(2). It therefore affirmed the district court's order without requiring oral argument.

    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. 15-6652

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    TRAVIS DELL JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
    James P. Jones, District
    Judge. (1:08-cr-00040-JPJ-1)

    Submitted:

    October 19, 2015

    Decided:

    November 24, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellant. Anthony P. Giorno, United States Attorney, Jean B.
    Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Travis

    Dell

    Jones

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence


    reduction.
    3582(c)(2)

    We generally review an order granting or denying a


    motion

    for

    abuse

    of

    discretion.

    See

    States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004).

    United

    We review

    de novo, however, a district courts determination of the scope


    of its authority under 3582(c)(2).
    551 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2009).

    United States v. Dunphy,


    We have thoroughly reviewed

    the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that
    the district court did not err in denying Jones motion for a
    sentence reduction.
    order.
    legal
    before

    We therefore affirm the district courts

    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

    You might also like