US v. Corey Duggins, No. 20-6827 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6827 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COREY NICOLAS DUGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00210-FL-1) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 25, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Nicolas Duggins, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey Nicolas Duggins appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Although the court found Duggins eligible for relief and reduced his term of supervised release accordingly, the court exercised its discretion not to reduce his term of imprisonment. In so doing, the court accurately described the record; considered Duggins’ new Sentencing Guidelines range, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and Duggins’ arguments for a reduction; and explained its reasons for denying the motion. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Duggins’ motion and affirm the court’s judgment. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 495-97 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First Step Act motion for abuse of discretion). We deny Duggins’ motions for appointment of counsel. 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
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.
