Court Opinion

ID: 9368359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:01:01.283738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.569227
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7218      Doc: 7        Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 19-7218

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ARNOLD MARK HENRY, a/k/a B,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00131-HCM-3)

        Submitted: December 29, 2022                                      Decided: February 2, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Arnold Mark Henry, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7218      Doc: 7         Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Arnold Mark Henry appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

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

        391, 132 Stat. 5194. On appeal, Henry argues that the district court incorrectly determined

        that his convictions for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise, in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A), were not covered offenses under the First Step Act.

        However, we recently concluded that “§ 848(e)(1)(A) is not a covered offense under the

        First Step Act as its penalties were not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.” United States

        v. Roane, 51 F.4th 541, 543, 546-53 (4th Cir. 2022). Because Henry’s claim is foreclosed

        by our holding in Roane, we affirm. 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