United States of America v. Jenna Blair Mobley

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6307
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JENNA BLAIR MOBLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:22-cr-00047-D-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: August 1, 2025
Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jenna Blair Mobley, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jenna Blair Mobley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing
Guidelines.* “We review a district court’s decision [whether] to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under
§ 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Our
review of the record reveals no error. The court clearly understood its authority to reduce
Mobley’s sentence and recognized Mobley’s postsentencing rehabilitative conduct, but
nevertheless exercised its discretion to deny a reduction based on its review of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
* In the same order, the district court also denied Mobley’s motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). Because Mobley does not
challenge that ruling in her informal brief, we conclude that she has forfeited appellate
review of that portion of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th
Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our
review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

-- 2 of 2 --