United States v. Michael Lee ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7481
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTRANTRINO LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:01-cr-00221-H-1)
Submitted: July 16, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Antrantrino Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Banumathi Rangarajan, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Antrantrino Lee appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(B) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 404(b) of the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Lee argues on appeal that the
district court erred in calculating his new range under the Sentencing Guidelines.
We affirm.
“We review the scope of a district court’s sentencing authority under the First Step
Act de novo.” United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667, 671 (4th Cir. 2020). When a
sentence reduction is permitted, we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s
decision to grant or deny the motion. See United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 180
(4th Cir. 2019). After determining that a sentence reduction is both permitted and
warranted, the district court must recalculate the defendant’s Guidelines range before
imposing a new sentence. Chambers, 956 F.3d at 672.
Upon review, we discern no error warranting reversal in the district court’s
application of the Guidelines. Accordingly, we grant Lee’s motion for leave to file his
reply brief out of time and affirm the district court’s judgment. United States v. Lee,
No. 5:01-cr-00221-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2020). We deny Lee’s motions for abeyance,
to appoint counsel, and to remand. 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