Court Opinion

ID: 9380004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 21:01:15.879489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.460701
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7429      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/15/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7429

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ERIC WHEELER, a/k/a E,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Shelby. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (4:96-cr-00053-MR-2)

        Submitted: February 22, 2023                                      Decided: March 15, 2023

        Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eric Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7429      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Eric Wheeler appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a sentence

        reduction pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat.

        5194. * We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v.

        Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497, 502 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review). The district

        court considered the revised statutory range, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range,

        the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and Wheeler’s rehabilitative efforts. The court also

        recognized that it had the discretion to impose the sentence sought by Wheeler, but it

        ultimately determined that the nature and circumstances of Wheeler’s offense, as well as

        his criminal history, weighed against a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

              *
                Although the district court granted Wheeler’s motion, the reduction granted by the
        court did not reduce his sentence to the full extent he requested.

                                                    2