Case ID: f-appx_641/html/0280-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin JOHNSON, a/k/a Dawg, a/k/a Dog, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 17, 2016.
    Decided: March 22, 2016.
    
      Alvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting 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 larger reduction in Johnson’s sentence. See United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir.2013) (standard of review); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B) (2015) (addressing appropriate factors to consider in ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (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. Johnson, No. 3:13-cr-00110-HEH-1 (E.D.Va., Dec. 18, 2015). We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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. 
      
       Although the district court granted Johnson’s motion, the reduction granted by the court was less than the reduction sought by Johnson.