United States v. John Riley

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 8, 2020
• Docket: 19-60941
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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.