United States v. May, 110819 FED4, 19-6332

Docket Nº:19-6332
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID TOBIAS MAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, Lisa Marie Lorish, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United S...
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 08, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID TOBIAS MAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-6332

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

November 8, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: October 31, 2019

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00058-JPJ-PMS-1)

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, Lisa Marie Lorish, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.

Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

David Tobias May appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). May pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. May sought to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the offense levels applicable to most drug trafficking offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(d), p.s. (2018); supp. app. C, amend. 782. May argues on appeal that the district court failed to understand its obligation to consider all the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors in ruling on his motion to reduce sentence, and failed to consider all his mitigation arguments and adequately explain the denial of relief. We affirm.

We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretions but "whether a court ruling on a motion to reduce under § 3582(c)(2) must provide an individualized explanation is considered de novo." United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2019). The district court found that May was eligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP