Marc Andre Fleurival appeals from the district courts order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), and § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222; reducing his sentence of imprisonment to time served; and reducing his term of supervised release to eight years. Fleurival also seeks to appeal from the August 31, 2007, criminal judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
On appeal, Fleurival pursues arguments that he did not present in his First Step Act motion, and most of those arguments attack his conviction. However, we conclude that Fleurival may not challenge his conviction in an appeal from the district courts order granting his First Step Act motion. Insofar as Fleurivals appellate arguments might be construed to object to the eight-year term of supervised release, we emphasize that Fleurival asked the district court to impose that term. Consequently, Fleurival may not now fault the district court for doing so. See United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713, 727 n.1 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining invited error doctrine). Because Fleurival has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in granting his First Step Act motion, we affirm the district courts order. See United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard of review).
Turning to Fleurivals attempt to appeal from the August 31, 2007, criminal judgment, we conclude that Fleurivals appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). And we exercise our discretion to sua sponte dismiss Fleurivals untimely appeal from the criminal judgment. See United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 129 (4th Cir. 2017) (explaining that appellate court may, in certain circumstances, sua sponte dismiss untimely criminal appeal).
We thus affirm in part and dismiss in part. 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 PART; DISMISSED IN PART
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.