The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-6433•United States of America v. Trevon Leonard Cox
24-6433Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 16, 2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6433
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TREVON LEONARD COX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00129-DJN-1)
Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024
Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Trevon Leonard Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Ray Simon, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Trevon Leonard Cox appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. “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 district court
clearly understood its authority to reduce Cox’s sentence for distribution of cocaine base,
but it declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The district court reasonably explained that a sentence reduction was unwarranted in light
of Cox’s serious offense conduct, his criminal history and recidivism, and the need to
protect the public from drug trafficking.
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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.