UNITED STATES v. LIVERMAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-07-01No. No. 20-7039

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's orders denying Liverman's motion for First Step Act relief and his motion to reconsider.

Liverman appealed the district court's denial of his request for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. Although the district court found that Liverman met the eligibility requirements for relief under the statute, it exercised its discretion to decline reducing his sentence. The appellate court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing the district court's decision and found no reversible error in the court's exercise of that discretion.

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

Key issues

Whether a district court abused its discretion in denying a sentence reduction under the First Step Act despite the defendant's eligibility
Standard of review for First Step Act sentencing determinations

Procedural posture

Liverman appealed the district court's denial of his First Step Act sentence reduction motion and motion to reconsider that denial.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Eltrentrose F. Liverman appeals the district courts orders denying his motion seeking relief pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, and motion to reconsider the denial of his First Step Act motion. We review a district courts decision whether to grant or deny a reduction under the First Step Act for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497 (4th Cir. 2020). If the defendant is eligible for First Step Act relief, as the district court concluded that Liverman is, the district court nevertheless has discretion to determine whether to reduce the defendants sentence. See United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258, 261 (4th Cir. 2020); see also First Step Act of 2018, § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district courts orders. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.