US v. Larry Jones, No. 08-6906 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6906 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY CHARVELL JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00042-JPB-JES-2) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. TRAXLER, Decided: Circuit February 26, 2009 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Charvell Jones appeals a district court order granting in part and denying in party his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court applied Amendment 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines to Jones total offense denied level Jones and reduced sentence. for request Jones sentence below a Guidelines range of imprisonment. We find the The the court amended We affirm. district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Jones motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d (stating standard of review). 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) Insofar as Jones suggests the court could have considered an even lower sentence below the Guidelines sentencing range, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. district Dunphy, judge 551 is F.3d not 247, 257 authorized (4th to Cir. reduce 2009) ( [A] a defendant s granting Jones sentence below the amended guideline range. ). Accordingly, sentence reduction. facts and materials legal before we affirm the order a We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.