Court Opinion

ID: 9402787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 21:00:33.951935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.560796
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7149      Doc: 42         Filed: 06/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7149

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        LEON COLEMAN, a/k/a Leon Walker, a/k/a Lee,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00304-GLR-1)

        Submitted: June 1, 2023                                           Decided: June 15, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, Sapna
        Mirchandani, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
        DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney,
        Baltimore, Maryland, Jonathan S. Tsuei, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7149       Doc: 42         Filed: 06/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Leon Coleman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduced

        sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat.

        5194. On appeal, Coleman argues the district court abused its discretion by denying his

        motion, because it misunderstood its broad authority under United States v. Chambers, 956

        F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020), ignored substantial mitigating arguments favoring relief, and

        failed to acknowledge the unwarranted sentencing disparities justifying a lower term. In

        his reply brief, he additionally argues that the district court erred in identifying him as a

        leader of the conspiracy. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

               The First Step Act of 2018 “allows a district court to impose a reduced sentence ‘as

        if’ the revised penalties for crack cocaine enacted in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were

        in effect at the time the offense was committed.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct.

        2389, 2396 (2022). “Concepcion instructs district courts exercising their discretion under

        the First Step Act to proceed in two steps.” United States v. Troy, 64 F.4th 177, 184 (4th

        Cir. 2023). “First, they must recalculate the movant’s Guidelines range ‘only to the extent

        it adjusts for the Fair Sentencing Act.’” Id. (citations omitted).

               “Second, they may (and when raised by the parties, must) consider other legal and

        factual changes when deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence.”              Id. (citing

        Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2396, 2402 n.6). “Thus, while a district court may consider other

        changes in the law when determining what reduction, if any, is appropriate in an individual

        case, the proper ‘benchmark’ for the district court’s analysis (and for our review) is the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7149       Doc: 42         Filed: 06/15/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        impact of the Fair Sentencing Act on the defendant’s Guidelines range.” Id. (citing

        Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2402 & n.6).

               We review a denial of a Section 404(b) motion for abuse of discretion. United States

        v. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 819 (4th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). “Under this standard, we

        affirm a district court’s denial of Section 404(b) relief unless the court’s decision is

        procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id. at 820 (citation omitted). “As a general

        matter, ‘it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the

        sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence,” and “appellate review

        should not be overly searching.” Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404 (citations omitted).

               “In resolving a motion under the First Step Act, a district court’s discretion is broad

        and its burden light.” Troy, 64 F.4th at 184 (citing Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404).

        “District courts are not required to modify a sentence ‘for any reason’ and may reject

        arguments they consider unconvincing in ‘a brief statement of reasons’ and ‘without a

        detailed explanation.’” Id. (quoting Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2402, 2404).

               “Nor does the First Step Act require a district court to make a point-by-point rebuttal

        of the parties’ arguments.” Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2405. “But when district courts

        consider such motions, they must still ‘sentence the whole person before them,’ ‘explain

        their decisions,’ and ‘demonstrate that they considered the parties’ arguments.’” Troy, 64

        F.4th at 184-85 (quoting Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2398, 2404).

               We have reviewed the record and Coleman’s arguments on appeal, and we conclude

        the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a sentence reduction.

        The district court demonstrated that it correctly understood its broad authority; considered

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7149       Doc: 42          Filed: 06/15/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        the intervening factual changes and other arguments made by Coleman; and did not err or

        abuse its discretion in finding that he failed to set forth unwarranted sentence disparities.

        “[I]t is well settled that codefendants and even coconspirators may be sentenced differently

        for the same offense,” United States v. Pierce, 409 F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir. 2005), and “it

        is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court

        as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence,” Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404.

               We also find no error in the district court’s identification of Coleman as a leader of

        the conspiracy. While the Government did not require Coleman to stipulate to a four-level

        role increase based on his leadership role, the parties stipulated the Government’s evidence

        would prove that he was a leader of the conspiracy. After the probation officer applied the

        four-level role increase, Coleman did not object to the enhancement; and the district court

        adopted the presentence report and Guidelines sentence of life before departing down to

        the agreed-upon sentence of 360 months pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).

               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

                                                       4