Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06725/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06725-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Delino Holmes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY DELINO HOLMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:06-cr-01319-RBH-1)

Submitted: April 30, 2020 Decided: May 26, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey P. Riddle, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Derek Alan Shoemake, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6725 Doc: 22 Filed: 05/26/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Delino Holmes appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to reduce 

his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 

Stat. 5194, and denying his motion for reconsideration. Holmes pled guilty in 2007 to 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in 5 grams or more cocaine base, 500 grams 

or more of cocaine, and 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846 (2018), and using and carrying a firearm during and in 

relation to, and in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2018). The district court determined that Holmes qualified as a career 

offender and sentenced him to 232 months’ imprisonment on the controlled substance 

offense and a consecutive 60-month sentence on the § 924(c) count.1

 

In 2019, Holmes moved for a reduction of sentence pursuant to the First Step Act, 

requesting that the court impose a reduced sentence on his conspiracy conviction. The 

district court denied the motion, concluding that Holmes’ conspiracy charge was not a 

“covered offense” within the meaning of the First Step Act because Holmes was convicted 

of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and heroin, and the statutory 

penalties for powder cocaine and heroin offenses were unchanged. 

Section 404(b) of the First Step Act provides that “[a] court that imposed a sentence 

for a covered offense may, on motion of the defendant . . . impose a reduced sentence as if 

1 The district court subsequently reduced Holmes’ sentence to an aggregate of 220 

months: 160 months on the conspiracy conviction and a consecutive 60 months on the 

firearm conviction.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6725 Doc: 22 Filed: 05/26/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-220; 124 Stat. 2372) 

were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.” § 404(b). “Section 404(a) 

defines a ‘covered offense’ as a violation of a federal criminal statute, the statutory 

penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 

that was committed before August 3, 2010.” United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258, 260 

(4th Cir. 2020). 

When the district court considered Holmes’ First Step Act motion, it did not have 

the benefit of our recent decision in Gravatt, in which we held that a defendant—like 

Holmes—who “was charged conjunctively with conspiring to distribute both powder 

cocaine and crack cocaine” was convicted of a covered offense under § 404(a). 953 F.3d 

at 264. Because Holmes’ sentence involved a covered offense under § 404(a), we vacate 

the district court’s order and remand to allow the district court to address Holmes’ motion 

on the merits.2 See Gravatt, 953 F.3d at 264. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

2 The district court recognized that it had the authority to reduce Holmes’ sentence

if it determined that he was convicted of a “covered offense” and stated that it would 

decline to do so as a matter of discretion. We take no position on the court’s decision at 

this juncture. The court may, however, choose to revisit that decision.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6725 Doc: 22 Filed: 05/26/2020 Pg: 3 of 3