United States v. LaGrant Greer ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7224
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAGRANT GREER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00202-1)
Submitted: January 19, 2021 Decided: January 29, 2021
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
LaGrant Greer, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Doyle Boggess, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
LaGrant Greer appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). For the reasons that
follow, we vacate and remand.
A district court may grant a compassionate release motion upon finding “that
extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” “that such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” and
that the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors weigh in favor of relief. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Here, from the district court’s summary order, we cannot discern whether
the court concluded that Greer failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for
release, that the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction, or both. As a
result, we cannot meaningfully review the district court’s decision.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for a fuller
explanation. * See United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 398 (4th Cir. 2019). We deny as
moot Greer’s motion to supplement the record. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
By this disposition, we express no view on the merits of Greer’s motion.
2