United States v. John Riley ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515555842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 8, 2020
No. 19-60941 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
John Riley, also known as P. J.,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:08-CR-92-1
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
John Riley, federal prisoner # 15081-043, was convicted of possession
with intent to distribute more than five grams of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). He was initially sentenced to a 324-month term of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515555842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2020
No. 19-60941
imprisonment, but his sentence was twice reduced, and he is currently
serving a 210-month term of imprisonment. He moved for resentencing
under the First Step Act of 2018, § 404, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194,
5222 (2018). The district court denied the motion. We remand for the
limited purpose of allowing the district court to explain why it did so, and we
retain jurisdiction as is customary for limited remands. See, e.g., United States
v. Gomez, 905 F.3d 347, 354-56 (5th Cir. 2018).
Without a hearing, the district court denied the motion in an order
without giving any reasons. Though district courts need not always explain
why they have denied a motion, meaningful review is possible here only with
a statement of reasons for the denial. See Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d
1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989). Absent such a statement, we can only guess why
the motion was denied. We thus REMAND for the limited purpose of
allowing the district court to explain its reasons for the denial.
2