United States v. Raoul Lafond

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-6635
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6635 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6635

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-CCE-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2022 Decided: June 23, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6635 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Raoul Lafond appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions for a

reduction in sentence pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,

132 Stat. 5194, 5222, for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),

and for appointment of counsel. We affirm.

Under the First Step Act, “[n]o court shall entertain a motion made under

[section 404] to reduce a sentence . . . if a previous motion made under this section to

reduce the sentence was, after the date of enactment of this Act, denied after a complete

review of the motion on the merits.” § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222. Our review discloses that

Lafond filed a prior motion for a reduction in sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act.

After a complete review of the merits of that prior motion, the district court granted relief

in part and denied relief in part. Accordingly, the district court was without authority to

consider the instant motion for a reduction in sentence.

As to Lafond’s motions for compassionate release and for appointment of counsel,

we have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.)

(providing standard for compassionate release motions), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383

(2021); United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2000) (noting that district court has

discretion to appoint counsel in proceedings under § 3582(c) if interests of justice so

require).

We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying Lafond’s motions. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6635 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED