Court Opinion

ID: 9368357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:00:59.920723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.209857
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4590      Doc: 32         Filed: 02/02/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4590

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DERRICK LEVON PLATT,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-01146-RBH-1)

        Submitted: January 26, 2023                                       Decided: February 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL
        PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F.
        Boroughs, United States Attorney, Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4590       Doc: 32          Filed: 02/02/2023       Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Derrick Levon Platt appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a

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

        132 Stat. 5194. On appeal, Platt argues that the district court erred when addressing his

        argument for a further reduction considering time he served on a prior conviction. Finding

        no reversible error, we affirm the district court’s order.

               We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision of whether to grant a

        reduction under the First Step Act. United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497 (4th Cir.

        2020). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to

        consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on

        erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Jenkins,

        22 F.4th 162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks 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, “other than legal errors in

        recalculating the Guidelines to account for the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes, appellate

        review should not be overly searching.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389,

        2404 (2022) (cleaned up).

               We agree with Platt that the district court should not have relied on 18 U.S.C.

        § 3583(b) in rejecting his argument. But we also conclude that the two provisions Platt

        argues that the district court should have applied instead, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

        Manual § 5G1.3(b), (d) (2018), are inapplicable. Section 5G1.3(b) only applies if the “term

        of imprisonment resulted from another offense that is relevant conduct to the instant

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4590      Doc: 32          Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        offense of conviction.” Here, the district court held that the prior conviction was not

        relevant conduct, and Platt does not challenge this finding on appeal. Section 5G1.3(d)

        provides that “[i]n any other case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, the

        sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently,

        or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable

        punishment for the instant offense.” The district court did that by ordering that its sentence

        run concurrently with the sentence for Platt’s prior conviction. And the commentary

        further provides that “subsection (d) does not authorize an adjustment of the sentence for

        the instant offense for a period of imprisonment already served on the undischarged term

        of imprisonment.” USSG § 5G1.3 cmt. n. 4(E).

               Therefore, 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

                                                      3