US v. Winzel Jacobs, No. 12-7393 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7393 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WINZEL DALLAS JACOBS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00319-WO-1; 1:09-cr-00114WO-2) Submitted: December 28, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winzel Dallas Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Winzel Dallas Jacobs appeals the district court s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and reducing his sentence to seventytwo months imprisonment. below the original Although the court imposed a sentence ninety-six month term, it did not reduce Jacobs sentence to the full extent he requested and instead imposed a sentence above the amended Guidelines range of sixtymonths imprisonment. reversible error. judgment. legal before We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm the district court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED Although the district court misstated Jacobs amended offense level, the court correctly determined that Jacobs amended Guidelines range was sixty months imprisonment. We find no abuse in the district court s exercise of its discretion to sentence Jacobs to a sentence above the amended Guidelines range. Cf. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying abuse of discretion standard to review of order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) order). 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.