United States v. Richard Shaw

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 19, 2024
• Docket: 24-6638
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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