Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07495/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07495-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brenda Benn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7495

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRENDA BENN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00030-RAJ-DEM-1)

Submitted: February 25, 2020 Decided: March 30, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda Benn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7495 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/30/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Brenda Benn appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for modification

of her sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We 

review de novo the district court’s interpretation of its authority under the First Step Act, 

United States v. Venable, 943 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2019), and may “affirm on any ground 

appearing in the record, including theories not relied upon or rejected by the district court,” 

United States v. Flores-Grandaos, 783 F.3d 487, 491 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Upon review, we find that the district court correctly concluded that it lacked 

authority under § 404 of the First Step Act to modify Benn’s sentence and order a split 

sentence, which would allow her to serve the remainder of her sentence on home 

confinement. See United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 183-86 (4th Cir. 2019). 

Additionally, to the extent that Benn argues that the district court should have ordered home 

confinement or recommended placement in a halfway house pursuant to § 602 of the First 

Step Act, we find that Benn is not eligible for such relief under the relevant statute, 18 

U.S.C. § 3624(c) (2018), which was amended by § 602 of the Act. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s order. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7495 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/30/2020 Pg: 2 of 2