UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7857

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DIRRICK DELONT LUCAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:03-cr-30095-MFU-1)

Submitted: June 21, 2021 Decided: August 6, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Lisa M. Lorish, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlottesville, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, S. Cagle Juhan, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dirrick Delont Lucas appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

sentence reduction pursuant to § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 

132 Stat. 5194 (“First Step Act”). The Government has filed an unopposed motion to 

remand this appeal to the district court. We grant the Government’s motion, vacate the 

district court’s order denying Lucas’ motion for sentence reduction, and remand to the 

district court for further proceedings. 

Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 

(“FSA”) “reduced the penalties for specific cocaine-[base-]related offenses punishable 

under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B).” United States v. Venable, 943 F.3d 187, 

188 (4th Cir. 2019). In relevant part, the FSA “changed the drug weight threshold that 

triggers a mandatory statutory sentencing range of ten years to life from 50 grams to 280 

grams.” United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, 404 (4th Cir. 2021). The FSA went 

into effect on August 3, 2010. Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260, 270 (2012). Because 

the district court sentenced Lucas before the FSA’s effective date, the new drug weight 

thresholds did not apply at his initial sentencing.

In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, which, among other things, made the 

FSA retroactive to all sentences imposed prior to the FSA’s effective date. Section 404 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 sections 2 and 3 of 

the [FSA] . . . were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.” First Step 

Act § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222. A “covered offense” is a federal crime, committed before 
3

August 3, 2010, for which the penalties were modified by section 2 or 3 of the FSA. First 

Step Act § 404(a), 132 Stat. at 5222.

We review a district court’s decision to deny relief under § 404(b) of the First Step 

Act for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497, 502 

(4th Cir. 2020). In the First Step Act context, we require a sentencing judge to 

(1) “accurately recalculate the Guidelines sentenc[ing] range”; (2) “correct original 

Guidelines errors and apply intervening case law made retroactive to the original 

sentence”; and (3) “consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors to determine what sentence 

is appropriate.” United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347, 355 (4th Cir. 2021). 

As the Government now concedes, Lucas’ revocation sentence exceeds the new 

statutory maximum sentence, and the district court abused its discretion by denying a 

sentence reduction. See Collington, 995 F.3d at 356. Accordingly, we grant the 

Government’s motion, vacate the district court’s order denying Lucas’ motion, and remand 

for further proceedings.

Although we deny as moot Lucas’ motions to accelerate case processing, the 

mandate shall issue forthwith so the district court may proceed without delay. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

VACATED AND REMANDED