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)
24-6804•United States of America v. Shammohd Jameil Ballah
24-6804Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 29, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6804
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAMMOHD JAMEIL BALLAH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00070-WO-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shammohd Jameil Ballah, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Shammohd Jameil Ballah appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Part A of Amendment 821 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. The district court concluded that Ballah was eligible for relief but
declined to reduce his sentence based on its assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
and Ballah’s postsentencing conduct. We may not reweigh those factors, and we find no
abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that Ballah’s failure to follow the rules
of the prison, the seriousness of his offense and his four disciplinary infractions, and his
inability to accept responsibility counseled against granting a sentence reduction. See
United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard). Accordingly,
we deny Ballah’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s
judgment.∗ United States v. Ballah, No. 1:20-cr-00070-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. June 4, 2024).
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
∗ Ballah requests that we place his appeal in abeyance for a potential amendment to
the firearm Guidelines. We deny that request, as Ballah may file a new § 3582(c)(2) motion
in the event that his Guidelines range is further reduced.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.