Court Opinion

ID: 9397275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:00:56.820934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.003118
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7449      Doc: 7         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7449

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ALEXANDER JONES,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00022-D-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alexander Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7449      Doc: 7         Filed: 05/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Alexander Jones appeals the district court’s order denying several motions,

        including Jones’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying Jones’ 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion and his motion for compassionate release. Jones, in the lone issue raised

        on appeal, asserts that the district court erroneously refused to apply the First Step Act of

        2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, to reduce his sentence because Jones lacks the

        serious drug convictions necessary to support his sentence as enhanced under the Armed

        Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We have reviewed the record as to this

        issue, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (recognizing that this court “limit[s] its review to the issues

        raised in the informal brief”), and discern no error. We therefore affirm the district court’s

        order. United States v. Jones, No. 5:17-cr-00022-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2022). 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

                                                      2