United States v. Anthony Gillis ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6944
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY DEWAYNE GILLIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00098-HEH-1)
Submitted: January 19, 2021 Decided: January 21, 2021
Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Dewayne Gillis, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony D. Gillis appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for a
sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L.
No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, and to expedite the decision. ∗ Although the court found Gillis
eligible for relief on one count of conviction, the court exercised its discretion and declined
to reduce Gillis’ term of imprisonment. In so doing, the court accurately described the
record, considered Gillis’ new Sentencing Guidelines range, evaluated the relevant 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and explained its reasons for denying the motion. On this record,
we discern no abuse of the court’s discretion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492,
495-97 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First Step Act motion for abuse of
discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Gillis, No. 3:05-cr-00098-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. June 8, 2020).
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
∗
Gillis requested expedited relief in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. On appeal,
however, Gillis does not challenge the denial of his motion to expedite relief. We confine
our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gillis’
informal brief does not challenge the denial of expedited relief, he has forfeited appellate
review of this issue. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).
2