Court Opinion

ID: 9381464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:14.970839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.824853
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7019      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7019

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ARTEMUS LAMARR RILEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00112-LO-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Artemus Lamarr Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Devon Withers, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7019      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Artemus Lamarr Riley appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction, which was based, primarily, on the

        statutory change enacted by § 403(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,

        132 Stat. 5194, 5222, and our ruling in United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271

        (4th Cir. 2020). The district court considered the arguments advanced by Riley, concluded

        that Riley established the requisite extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence

        reduction, and exercised its discretion to reduce Riley’s sentence—albeit not to the extent

        Riley sought.

               Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

        discretion in its adjudication of Riley’s motion. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S.

        Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm the court’s ruling.

        United States v. Riley, No. 1:14-cr-00112-LO-1 (E.D. Va. July 19, 2022). 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