Court Opinion

ID: 9390142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:08.401578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.703670
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6064      Doc: 6         Filed: 04/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6064

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANTEDIOUS STOWE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00108-RJC-1)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                           Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Antedious Stowe, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6064      Doc: 6        Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Antedious Stowe appeals the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a

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

        132 Stat. 5194, 5222. The court concluded that Stowe was eligible for relief and exercised

        its discretion to reduce his sentence, but not as low as requested. After reviewing the

        record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the

        extent of the sentence reduction. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-

        05 (2022) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United

        States v. Stowe, No. 3:07-cr-00108-RJC-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 10, 2023). 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