Court Opinion

ID: 9375217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:29.358597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.088952
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7306      Doc: 6        Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7306

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        COREY THOMAS JONES,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Corey Thomas Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7306         Doc: 6      Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Corey Thomas Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

        U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. On appeal, Jones does not

        dispute the bases for the court’s decision; rather, Jones contends that the Government never

        served him with a copy of its response, thus preventing him from filing a reply brief.

        However, the Government’s filing included a certificate of service indicating that it had

        mailed the response to the correctional facility where Jones is housed. Because Jones

        presents no contrary evidence, we reject his argument and affirm the district court’s

        judgment. 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