US v. Shane Fells, No. 16-7202 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7202 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHANE FELLS, a/k/a Quasim Yusef Johnson, a/k/a Q, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00046-H-1) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shane Fells, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Matthew Fesak, Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Lawrence Jason Cameron, Shailika S. Kotiya, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shane Fells appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. * that the district We have reviewed the record and conclude court did not abuse its discretion declining to grant a larger reduction in Fells’ sentence. United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. in See 2013) (standard of review); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-27 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not full resentencing); United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195-96 (4th Cir. presumed, absent relevant factors Accordingly, we 2013) (recognizing contrary when affirm indication, ruling the that on district § district to have court considered 3582(c)(2) court’s is motion). order. United States v. Fells, No. 3:94-cr-00046-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2016). We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Although the district court granted Fells’ motion and sentenced Fells within the reduced amended Guidelines range, the reduction granted by the court was less than the reduction sought by Fells. 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.