United States v. Richard Shaw ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6638 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6638
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD SHAW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00010-JPJ-PMS-2)
Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 19, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Mitchell Scheff, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6638 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Shaw appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Amendment 821, in part, provides for a two-level reduction in offense level for certain
defendants with zero criminal history points. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
Supp. App. C., amend No. 821, part B, subpart 1 (2023). This reduction may be applied
retroactively. See USSG § 1B1.10(d). Pursuant to USSG § 4C1.1(A), a defendant is
eligible for an adjustment in his offense level only if he “meets all of the [listed] criteria.”
One of the listed criteria requires that the defendant did not receive a leadership role
adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1 and did not engage in a continuing criminal enterprise.
USSG § 4C1.1(a)(10). As Shaw received a leadership role enhancement at his original
sentencing, the district court found that he did not meet the criteria listed in § 4C1.1(a).
See, e.g., United States v. Cervantes, 109 F.4th 944, 946-48 (7th Cir. 2024) (concluding
that application of role enhancement disqualifies a defendant from receiving a reduction
under § 4C1.1(a)(10)).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order. United States v. Shaw, No. 1:14-cr-00010-JPJ-PMS-2 (W.D. Va.,
June 10, 2024). 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