United States v. Michael Gilbert ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7785
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL GILBERT, a/k/a Tracy, a/k/a Roy Smith,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:97-cr-00352-REP-2)
    Submitted: November 18, 2020                                 Decided: December 3, 2020
    Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public
    Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
    FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary
    Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Gilbert appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a
    reduction in his sentence pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L.
    No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. On appeal, he contends that the district court abused its
    discretion by failing to recalculate the Guidelines range prior to denying his motion. When
    the district court decided Gilbert’s motion, it did not have the benefit of our recent decision
    in United States v. Chambers, 
    956 F.3d 667
    , 672 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding that the district
    court must recalculate Guidelines range when considering sentence reduction under First
    Step Act). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further
    proceedings in light of Chambers. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-7785

Filed Date: 12/3/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/3/2020