Court Opinion

ID: 9914258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 21:00:41.448201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:59.077313
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6393      Doc: 7         Filed: 12/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-6393

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DAVIEYON DEVELLE HOPKINS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00002-FDW-1)

        Submitted: November 14, 2023                                  Decided: December 28, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Davieyon Develle Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6393      Doc: 7         Filed: 12/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Davieyon Develle Hopkins appeals the district court’s order denying his renewed

        motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), and § 404(b) of the First

        Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. The district court ruled that

        it could not entertain Hopkins’ renewed motion because he previously filed a First Step

        Act motion that the court denied after “a complete review . . . on the merits.” First Step

        Act, § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222. We discern no error in the district court’s ruling. See

        United States v. Goodwin, 37 F.4th 948, 952 (4th Cir. 2022) (reviewing de novo district

        court’s determination that defendant was ineligible for First Step Act relief under § 404(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

                                                      2