Court Opinion

ID: 9837961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:26.581419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.771912
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6371     Doc: 7         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6278

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        QUALO MARTEZ LOWERY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 23-6371

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        QUALO MARTEZ LOWERY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
        at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:05-cr-00216-RJC-2)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                  Decided: September 1, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6371      Doc: 7        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Qualo Martez Lowery, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6371         Doc: 7      Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Qualo Martez Lowery appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for a

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

        132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (First Step Act). We review a district court’s decision on a First Step

        Act motion for abuse of discretion.        United States v. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 819

        (4th Cir. 2023). Our review of the record reveals no error. The court found Lowery eligible

        for First Step Act relief, but, after considering Lowery’s mitigating arguments, it declined

        to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Lowery’s motion to

        appoint counsel. 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

                                                     3