Filed: Dec. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2020
Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515665508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 8, 2020
No. 19-60941
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
John Riley, also known as P. J.,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:08-CR-92-1
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
John Riley, federal prisoner # 15081-043, challenges the district
court’s order denying his motion for resentencing under the First Step Act
of 2018, § 404, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). Riley
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515665508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
No. 19-60941
contends: his motion did not receive a complete review on the merits; and
the order denying his motion lacked any explanation or review of his claim.
A district court’s discretionary denial of relief under Section 404 of
the First Step Act is, generally, reviewed for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Jackson,
945 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2019).
On limited remand, the district court explained that it had denied
Riley’s motion for resentencing because his sentence “has previously been
reduced by all applicable guideline amendments”. Insofar as Riley maintains
the court failed to consider the merits of his motion for a sentence reduction,
his contention fails.
Id. at 321–22 (denying motion for reduced sentence
under § 404 because, inter alia, “[defendant] had his day in court. He filed a
detailed motion explaining why he should get a new sentence; the
government responded; the court denied the motion; and, on limited
remand, it explained why. . . . The procedures here were blameless”.).
Alternatively, if Riley is challenging the court’s reasoning for its
denial, his contention is waived for inadequate briefing. See Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(8)(A); United States v. Reagan,
596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010) ( “a
failure to brief . . . constitutes waiver”). He claims his motion “never
received a complete review on the merits as required”. As discussed above,
on limited remand, the court provided an adequate explanation for its denial.
(In addition, he concedes his claims lack merit. See
Jackson, 945 F.3d at 321–
22.)
AFFIRMED.
2