United States v. Robert Stokes

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 7, 2023
• Docket: 20-6021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6021 Doc: 61 Filed: 08/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT STOKES, a/k/a Robert B. Stokes,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00138-REP-1)

Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: August 7, 2023

Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-6021 Doc: 61 Filed: 08/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Robert Stokes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence

reduction pursuant to § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat.

5194 (“First Step Act”). We review the district court’s denial of Stokes’ motion for abuse

of discretion. United States v. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 819 (4th Cir. 2023). “A district court

abuses its discretion if its decision to retain or reduce a sentence under the First Step Act

is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Troy, 64 F.4th 177, 184

(4th Cir. 2023).

Stokes argues that the district court erred by failing to consider the combined effects

of the Fair Sentencing Act and retroactive Guidelines Amendment 782, which the court

previously applied to Stokes, when recalculating his benchmark Guidelines range. Doing

so would produce a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months, lower than the range of 262 to

327 months applied by the district court in its First Step Act ruling.

We need not determine whether the district court’s Guidelines calculation was

correct. Subsequent developments make clear that any error in recalculating Stokes’

Guidelines range was harmless. See United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382

(4th Cir. 2017). During the pendency of this appeal, the district court denied Stokes’

second motion for compassionate release. In its detailed analysis of that motion, the district

court considered the combined effect of the Fair Sentencing Act and Amendment 782 on

Stokes’ Guidelines range. It concluded that, even assuming Stokes had demonstrated

extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-6021 Doc: 61 Filed: 08/07/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

factors confirmed that Stokes’ existing sentence was sufficient, but not greater than

necessary, to satisfy the purposes of sentencing.

Given the district court’s conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors support the existing

sentence and its explicit consideration of the Guidelines range Stokes believes should have

applied to his First Step Act motion, we conclude that any error in calculating the

benchmark Guidelines range for purposes of the First Step Act “did not have a substantial

and injurious effect or influence on the result.” See United States v Ross, 912 F.3d 740,

745 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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