United States v. Virgil Watkins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 24-7210
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7210 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VIRGIL MONTELL-DENZEL WATKINS, a/k/a Sav,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00074-1)

Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025

Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Virgil Montell-Denzel Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7210 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Virgil Montell-Denzel Watkins appeals the district court’s order denying his

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821. Part

A of Amendment 821, amending U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1 (2023),

limits the impact of “status points,” which are “additional criminal history points given to

defendants for the fact of having committed the instant offense while under a criminal

justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work

release, or escape status.” USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n.7. Applying Amendment 821, Watkins’s

amended Sentencing Guidelines range became 140 to 175 months.

We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error in the district court’s

denial of Watkins’s motion for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Spruhan, 989

F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard). That is, because Watkins’s 128-month

sentence is below the low end of the amended Guidelines range and not a result of

substantial assistance, the court correctly concluded that Watkins is ineligible for a

sentence reduction. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), p.s.; Spruhan, 989 F.3d at 268-69.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Watkins, No. 3:22-cr-

00074-1 (S.D.W. Va. July 18, 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