UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7547

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAWAYNE DEVONE LOVE, a/k/a Terry Wayne Love, a/k/a T-Wayne,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00187-1)

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: June 7, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tawayne Devone Love, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tawayne Devone Love appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 

motions filed pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 

132 Stat. 5194. We vacate the district court’s order and remand for reconsideration in light 

of United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2021), and United States v. 

Lancaster, F.3d , No. 20-6571, 2021 WL 1823287 (4th Cir. May 7, 2021).

We previously held in United States v. Chambers that, “when imposing a new 

sentence” under the First Step Act, “a court does not simply adjust the statutory minimum; 

it must also recalculate the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.” 956 F.3d 667, 672 (4th Cir. 

2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, “any Guidelines error deemed 

retroactive . . . must be corrected in a First Step Act resentencing.” Id. at 668. We also 

held that “the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors apply in the § 404(b) resentencing 

context,” and a court “may consider post-sentencing conduct” in determining whether to 

exercise its discretion to reduce a sentence. Id. at 674. Additionally, “the First Step Act 

does not constrain courts from recognizing Guidelines errors,” id. at 668, or “preclude the 

court from applying intervening case law,” id. at 672, in making its discretionary 

determination.

In a prior appeal, we instructed the district court to reconsider its earlier order 

denying Love’s motion in light of Chambers. United States v. Love, 814 F. App’x 779, 

781 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-6431(L)). On remand, the district court concluded that Love’s 

Guidelines range did not change because he remained a career offender; however, the court 

did not address Love’s argument that he was no longer a career offender under current law. 
3

Moreover, while the district court addressed the § 3553(a) factors, it only engaged with 

Love’s arguments regarding his postsentencing rehabilitation in a footnote.

In Collington, we clarified three steps a district court must take when considering a 

request for relief under Section 404: (1) “district courts must accurately recalculate the 

Guidelines sentence range,” (2) “district courts must correct original Guidelines errors and 

apply intervening case law made retroactive to the original sentence,” and (3) “the court 

must consider the § 3553(a) factors to determine what sentence is appropriate.” 995 F.3d 

at 355. We further explained that “when a court exercises discretion to reduce a sentence, 

the imposition of the reduced sentence must be procedurally and substantively reasonable.” 

Id. at 358. Thus, a district court must “consider a defendant’s arguments, give individual 

consideration to the defendant’s characteristics in light of the § 3553(a) factors, 

determine—following the Fair Sentencing Act—whether a given sentence remains 

appropriate in light of those factors, and adequately explain that decision.” Id. at 360.

We provided further guidance to district courts in Lancaster. We explained that a 

district “court must engage in a brief analysis that involves the recalculation of the 

Sentencing Guidelines in light of intervening case law.” 2021 WL 1823287, at *3 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). This requires a district court to correct Guidelines errors based 

on non-retroactive changes in the law. Id. at *4. We cautioned, however, that this “analysis 

is not intended to be a complete or new relitigation of Guidelines issues or the § 3553(a) 

factors.” Id. at *3.

Because the district court did not have the benefit of our decisions in Collington and 

Lancaster, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for reconsideration. By this 
4

disposition, we express no view on the ultimate merits of Love’s motion. 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