US v. Eon David, No. 09-6754 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6754 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EON DAVID, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (2:95-cr-00206-JAB-3) Submitted: June 25, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and MICHAEL and July 9, 2009 KING, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eon David, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eon David appeals the district court s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. David contends the district court erred by considering his post-sentencing actions, rather than considering the facts as they existed determining at the whether time to of his reduce a original sentencing. defendant s In sentence, the district court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and the impact on public safety if the sentence is reduced. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i), (ii) (2008). defendant s n.1(B)(iii). post-sentencing The court also may consider the conduct. USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. Accordingly, the district court s consideration of David s post-sentencing conduct and the impact on public safety of reducing David s sentence was entirely proper. Accordingly, denying relief. we affirm the district court s order United States v. David, No. 2:95-cr-00206-JAB-3 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2009). In light of this disposition, we deny as to moot appeal. legal before David s motion expedite the disposition of his We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.