Court Opinion

ID: 9966103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-04 21:00:40.023301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:12.187874
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6187      Doc: 5        Filed: 05/03/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-6187

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        AHKING KALIEK WILLIAMS, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00041-TDS-1)

        Submitted: April 4, 2024                                            Decided: May 3, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ahking Kaliek Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6187      Doc: 5         Filed: 05/03/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ahking Kaliek Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. We review the denial of a motion under

        § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion.      United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395

        (4th Cir. 2019). The district court must first determine whether the movant is eligible for

        a reduction and the extent of that reduction authorized. Id. The court must then “consider

        any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the

        reduction authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole

        or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.

        817, 827 (2010).     We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion.

        Accordingly, we affirm.      See United States v. Williams, No. 1:23-cr-00041-TDS-1

        (M.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2024). 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