United States v. Britney Robinson ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRITNEY JOYCE ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00027-IMK-MJA-3)
Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: January 14, 2020
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Britney Joyce Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Britney Joyce Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying her motion under
Section 602 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review
de novo the district court’s interpretation of its authority under the First Step Act. United
States v. Venable, 943 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2019). Moreover, we may “affirm on any
ground appearing in the record, including theories not relied upon or rejected by the district
court.” United States v. Flores-Grandaos, 783 F.3d 487, 491 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The district court did not err in denying Robinson’s request for
an order to be placed in home confinement or a halfway house because she is not eligible
for such relief under the statute, as amended by the First Step Act. See 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3624(c) (2015 & Supp. 2019). The district court correctly concluded that it lacked
authority under the First Step Act to order a split sentence. See United States v. Wirsing,
943 F.3d 175, 183-86 (4th Cir. 2019). Therefore, 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
2