UNITED STATES v. GARNER (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-07-23No. No. 21-6320

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order reducing Garner's sentence pursuant to the First Step Act, finding no abuse of discretion in the reduction granted, though the reduction was less than Garner had sought.

Calvin Colweth Garner, Jr. sought appellate review of a district court's decision granting his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. The appellate court examined whether the district court had abused its discretion in modifying his prison sentence. Although the district court's reduction did not extend to the full amount Garner had requested, the appellate panel found no abuse of discretion in the decision to reduce his term.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court abused discretion in granting sentence reduction under First Step Act Section 404(b)
Scope of sentence reduction available under First Step Act

Procedural posture

Garner appealed the district court's order granting partial relief on his First Step Act sentence reduction motion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Calvin Colweth Garner, Jr., appeals from the district courts order granting relief on his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA 2018), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Garners prison term. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497, 502 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on FSA 2018 sentence reduction motion for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Garner, No. 4:10-cr-00079-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2021). We deny Garners motion to seal as he must present such a motion in the district court. See 4th Cir. R. 25(c)(2)(A). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. Although the district court granted Garners motion, the reduction granted by the district court did not reduce his sentence to the full extent he requested.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.