United States v. Larry Speed ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY KENNETH SPEED, a/k/a Kenneth Richard Godfrey, a/k/a Kenny Speed,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:00-cr-00092-RAJ-1)
Submitted: February 18, 2021 Decided: March 9, 2021
Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Kenneth Speed, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Kenneth Speed appeals from the district court’s memorandum opinion and
order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), and
§ 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. The
district court determined that Speed was eligible for relief under the First Step Act but
declined to exercise its discretion to reduce Speed’s concurrent life sentences.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s ruling on Speed’s First Step
Act motion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497, 502 (4th Cir. 2020). Based
on our review of the record, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018)
(explaining abuse of discretion standard). The district court provided an adequate
explanation for denying Speed’s motion and appropriately determined that Speed’s
significant evidence of post-sentencing rehabilitation did not outweigh the seriousness of
his past violent conduct. See United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402, __, No. 19-7668,
2021 WL 218888, at *8 (4th Cir. Jan. 22, 2021) (ruling that district court must provide
individualized explanation allowing for “meaningful [appellate] review” when deciding
First Step Act motion that relies on post-sentencing rehabilitation evidence).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of First Step Act relief. 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