Court Opinion

ID: 9353831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 21:01:20.34883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:12:05.420834
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7782      Doc: 40         Filed: 01/11/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 19-7782

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RODNEY LORENZO WYATT, JR., a/k/a Rodney Lorenzo Wyatt,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00133-REP-RCY-1)

        Submitted: July 21, 2022                                          Decided: January 11, 2023

        Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE
        OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. G.
        Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7782         Doc: 40      Filed: 01/11/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rodney Lorenzo Wyatt, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“the Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-

        391, 132 Stat. 5194. Although the court found Wyatt eligible for relief under the Act, the

        court exercised its discretion and declined to reduce Wyatt’s term of imprisonment. In

        denying Wyatt’s motion, however, the district court did not demonstrate that it considered

        Wyatt’s nonfrivolous argument that his Sentencing Guidelines range has been significantly

        reduced since his original sentencing. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389,

        2405 (2022) (holding that, although a district court is not required “to make a point-by-

        point rebuttal of the parties’ arguments,” it must “demonstrate that it has considered the

        arguments before it”).

               Because the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision

        in Concepcion when it ruled on Wyatt’s motion, we vacate and remand so the court may

        reassess Wyatt’s motion. By this disposition, we express no view on the ultimate merits

        of Wyatt’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

                                                     2