Court Opinion

ID: 9930910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:01:03.308356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:53.061870
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7209      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/06/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7209

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7209      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Roshaun Reid appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled

        “Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)” and motion to expedite resentencing hearing. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Reid asserted that this court had vacated

        his criminal judgment and sentence in appeal No. 19-7803 and requested resentencing and

        appointment of counsel for a resentencing hearing. In United States v. Reid, 823 F. App’x

        223, 224 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-7803), this court determined that Reid was eligible to

        receive a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, vacated the

        district court’s order denying Reid’s § 404(b) motion, and remanded for further

        proceedings. This court’s opinion in Reid, however, did not vacate Reid’s criminal

        judgment or require that Reid be brought to court for a resentencing hearing. We thus

        affirm the district court’s denial order. United States v. Reid, No. 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1

        (D.S.C. Nov. 15, 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