United States v. Romaine Short

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 2, 2023
• Docket: 20-7069
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7069 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROMAINE ABDUL SHORT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00123-RBS-JEB- 3)

Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: August 2, 2023

Before WYNN, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Romaine Abdul Short, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-7069 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Romaine Abdul Short appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

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

Stat. 5194 (“First Step Act”). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion, see United States v. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 819 (4th Cir.

2023) (stating standard of review), by declining to sua sponte consider the changes the First

Step Act made to the definition of the type of offense that triggers the statutory

enhancement in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), see United States v. Troy, 64 F.4th 177, 184 (4th Cir.

2023) (providing standard for consideration of First Step Act motions); Reed, 58 F.4th at

822 (recognizing that “a district court is not required to modify a sentence for any reason”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and

deny Short’s motion for appointment of counsel. United States v. Short, No. 4:07-cr-

00123-RBS-JEB-3 (E.D. Va. July 10, 2020). 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