Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06019/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvin Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALVIN JOHNSON, a/k/a Dawg, a/k/a Dog,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:13-cr-00110-HEH-1)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6019 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 (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 

 * Although the district court granted Johnson’s motion, the 

reduction granted by the court was less than the reduction 

sought by Johnson.

Appeal: 16-6019 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6019 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3