Opinion
No. 20-6828
10-23-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEVELLE TASHAWN BUNCH, Defendant - Appellant.
Develle Tashawn Bunch, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00003-FL-1) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Develle Tashawn Bunch, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Develle Tashawn Bunch appeals the district court's order granting in part and denying in part his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 ("First Step Act"), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Although the court found Bunch eligible for relief and reduced his term of supervised release accordingly, the court exercised its discretion not to reduce his term of imprisonment. In so doing, the court accurately described the record; considered Bunch's Sentencing Guidelines range, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and Bunch's arguments in favor of a reduction; and explained its reasons for denying the motion in part. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bunch's motion in part and affirm the court's judgment. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 495-97 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First Step Act motion for abuse of discretion). We deny Bunch's motion for appointment of counsel. 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