Court Opinion

ID: 9405256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:41.664112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.259475
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7236      Doc: 6         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-7236

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        KENNETH LEE FOSTER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-WCM-8)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                            Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7236      Doc: 6         Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Lee Foster appeals the district court’s order granting in part his motion for

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

        132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (“First Step Act”). The district court concluded that Foster was

        eligible for relief under the First Step Act and exercised its discretion to reduce Foster’s

        sentence, but not as low as Foster requested. After reviewing the record, we conclude that

        the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the extent of the sentence

        reduction. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022) (stating

        standard); see also United States v. Troy, 64 F.4th 177, 183-84 (4th Cir. 2023) (discussing

        application of Sentencing Guidelines in assessing § 404(b) motion); United States v. Reed,

        58 F.4th 816, 820 (4th Cir. 2023) (describing reasonableness review in § 404(b) context).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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