Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Devon ARTIS, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Devon Artis, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-06
Citations: 684 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 16-7583, No. 16-7584
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Devon ARTIS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Devon Artis, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Devon ARTIS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Devon Artis, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7583, No. 16-7584
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2017
Decided: April 6, 2017
Joel Devon Artis, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Laura Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joel Devon Artis appeals from the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions to reduce his drug possession sentences in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court first stated that it lacked the discretion to reduce Artis' sentences. Our subsequent decision in United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 439 (4th Cir. 2016), undermines this conclusion. However, the district court alternately reasoned that, even if it had the discretion to lower Artis' sentences, it would decline to do so in order to protect public safety and in view of Artis' poor performance on supervision. We conclude that this alternate ruling does not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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