Court Opinion

ID: 9893112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 21:00:41.432484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:45.626307
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6813      Doc: 5         Filed: 10/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6813

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JOSEPH HOWARD DAVIS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00065-KDB-DCK-1)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 24, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joseph Howard Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6813      Doc: 5         Filed: 10/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Joseph Howard Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction. After review of the record, we conclude

        that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that such relief was not

        warranted in light of relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors after balancing those factors

        against Davis’ arguments. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834 (4th Cir.

        2022) (noting standard of review, conclusions district court must draw to grant motion, and

        guideposts for determining whether court has abused its discretion in considering 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) factors). Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. United States v. Davis,

        No. 5:16-cr-00065-KDB-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2023).                 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