Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07931/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07931-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Lee Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL LEE JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00035-FPS-JES-2)

Submitted: June 7, 2010 Decided: June 22, 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Lee Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7931 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Lee Jackson appeals from the district court’s 

order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction 

of sentence and imposing an amended sentence in the middle of 

the reduced Sentencing Guidelines range. Jackson appeals, 

arguing that the court should have considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors and reduced his sentence further. We 

have reviewed the record in this case and find no abuse of 

discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Jackson, No. 3:02-cr-00035-FPS-JES-2 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 7, 2009). 

In addition, we note that Jackson’s claims on appeal are barred 

by our decision in United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251-52 

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009) (finding 

jurisdictional bar to reducing prison term below the amended 

Guidelines range). 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

Appeal: 09-7931 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 2