United States v. Kenneth Foster

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Kenneth Foster

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 2023

Docket22-7236

StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Kenneth Foster (United States v. Kenneth Foster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Kenneth Foster, (4th Cir. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7236 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7236

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH LEE FOSTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-WCM-8)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7236 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Foster appeals the district court’s order granting in part his motion for

a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,

132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (“First Step Act”). The district court concluded that Foster was

eligible for relief under the First Step Act and exercised its discretion to reduce Foster’s

sentence, but not as low as Foster requested. After reviewing the record, we conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the extent of the sentence

reduction. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022) (stating

standard); see also United States v. Troy, 64 F.4th 177, 183-84 (4th Cir. 2023) (discussing

application of Sentencing Guidelines in assessing § 404(b) motion); United States v. Reed,

58 F.4th 816, 820 (4th Cir. 2023) (describing reasonableness review in § 404(b) context).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI