Court Opinion

ID: 9957239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:14.645062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:14.023584
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7232      Doc: 6        Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7232

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JARVARIS ANTWAN ANDREWS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00144-CCE-1; 1:23-cv-
        00638-CCE-JEP)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jarvaris Antwan Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7232      Doc: 6         Filed: 04/02/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jarvaris Antwan Andrews appeals the district court’s order denying his motion

        seeking relief under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 and appointment of counsel,

        confining his appeal to the denial of relief under § 404(b). We have reviewed the record

        and find no reversible error in light of our decision in United States v. Lancaster, 997 F.3d

        171, 174-75 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting that sentence does not qualify for reduction under

        § 404(b) if it was “the subject of a motion made after enactment of the First Step Act that

        was denied after a complete review of the motion on the merits” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Andrews,

        No. 1:08-cr-00144-CCE-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2023). 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

                                                     2