United States v. Kenyatte Brown ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6544
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENYATTE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-01109-MBS-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2019 Decided: November 25, 2019
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United
States Attorney, William K. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenyatte Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194,
5222 (2018), which permits a district court to impose a reduced sentence on a defendant
convicted of a covered offense as if certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,
Pub. L. No. 111-2220, 124 Stat. 2372, 2372 (2012), were in effect at the time the defendant
committed the covered offense. Section 404(b) of the First Step Act defines a covered
offense as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were
modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act.” Brown was convicted of possessing
with intent to distribute five grams or less of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). Because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the
statutory penalties for that offense, Brown’s offense is not a covered offense and the district
court correctly denied Brown’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to § 404 of the First
Step Act.
We therefore 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