Filed: Oct. 23, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TITO LAMONT ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00075-D-1) Submitted: October 20, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6652 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TITO LAMONT ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00075-D-1) Submitted: October 20, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TITO LAMONT ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00075-D-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tito Lamont Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tito Lamont Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a
sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L.
No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Although the court found Anderson eligible for relief, the
court exercised its discretion and declined to reduce Anderson’s term of imprisonment. In
so doing, the court accurately described the record; considered Anderson’s new Sentencing
Guidelines range, which included adopting the calculations reflecting that Anderson no
longer qualified as a career offender; evaluated the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
and Anderson’s arguments in favor of a reduction; and explained its reasons for denying
the motion. On this record, we discern no abuse of the court’s discretion. See United States
v. Jackson,
952 F.3d 492, 495-97 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First Step Act
motion for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Anderson, No. 4:08-cr-00075-D-1 (E.D.N.C. filed May 1,
2020 & entered May 4, 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
2