Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    United States v. Travis Jones, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Travis Dell Jones' motion to reduce his sentence. Jones appealed the district court's ruling under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying the motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in existing court documents.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Travis Jones, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Travis Dell Jones' motion to reduce his sentence. Jones appealed the district court's ruling under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying the motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in existing court documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6955

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Travis Dell Jones' motion to reduce his sentence. Jones appealed the district court's ruling under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying the motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in existing court documents.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    11 views2 pages

    United States v. Travis Jones, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Travis Dell Jones' motion to reduce his sentence. Jones appealed the district court's ruling under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasons for denying the motion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in existing court documents.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6955

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    TRAVIS DELL JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
    James P. Jones, District
    Judge. (1:08-cr-00040-JPJ-1)

    Submitted:

    August 16, 2012

    Decided:

    August 21, 2012

    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Travis Dell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Travis Dell Jones appeals the district courts order
    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence
    reduction.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Jones, No. 1:08-cr-00040-JPJ-1

    (W.D.

    27,

    Va.

    Mar.

    2012).

    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

    You might also like