UNITED STATES v. BAKER (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-03-29No. No. 20-6225

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order granting a sentence reduction under section 404(b) of the First Step Act while declining to reduce the supervised release term.

Norvell Blythe Baker sought appellate review of a district court's decision to reduce his prison sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The appellate court examined whether the district court abused its discretion when it granted the sentence reduction while declining to modify Baker's supervised release term. Finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court, the appellate panel upheld the district court's judgment.

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 reducing prison sentence under First Step Act
Whether supervised release term should also be modified in conjunction with prison sentence reduction

Procedural posture

Baker appealed from the district court's order on his motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Norvell Blythe Baker 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 Bakers prison term and in declining to reduce Bakers supervised release 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. Baker, No. 1:04-cr-00254-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2020). We deny Bakers motion to expedite decision and 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.