Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Lee JONES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-07
Citations: 373 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 09-8165
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Lee JONES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: •Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Lee JONES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-8165.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2010.
Decided: April 7, 2010.
William Lee Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
•Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Jones, Jr., appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court found Jones was not eligible for a reduction because he was found responsible for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. We affirm. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones's motion for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir.2010) (stating standard of review). A review of the sentencing transcript shows that the sentencing court noted Jones was responsible for moi'e than 5.1 kilograms of crack cocaine. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order finding Jones was not eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Jones, No. 2:02-cr-00019-1 (S.D.W.Va. Nov. 2, 2009) (citing United States Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10, 2Dl.l(c)(l)). 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.