United States v. Mark Moore ( 2022 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7310
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00129-GCM-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2022 Decided: April 25, 2022
Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Moore appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part
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. Because the district
court resolved Moore’s First Step Act motion without the benefit of our decision in United
States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2021), we vacate and remand.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s ruling on Moore’s First Step
Act motion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497, 502 (4th Cir. 2020). In
Collington, we explained that a district court is obliged to proceed in the following manner
when imposing sentence under the First Step Act: (1) the court “must accurately
recalculate the [Sentencing] Guidelines . . . range,” (2) the court “must correct original
Guidelines errors and apply intervening case law made retroactive to the original sentence,”
and (3) “the court must consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors to determine what
sentence is appropriate.” 995 F.3d at 355.
Our Collington decision also ruled that when a district court “exercises [its]
discretion to reduce a sentence, the imposition of the reduced sentence must be
procedurally and substantively reasonable.” Id. at 358. A district court imposing sentence
under the First Step Act is therefore required to “consider a defendant’s arguments, give
individual consideration to the defendant’s characteristics in light of the § 3553(a) factors,
determine . . . whether a given sentence remains appropriate in light of those factors, and
adequately explain that decision.” Id. at 360.
2
Here, the district court entered its order before we issued our opinion in Collington.
The court declined to reduce Moore’s prison sentence for his drug conspiracy offense based
solely on its determination that the Guidelines range for that offense was unchanged.
Because the district court did not consider the § 3553(a) factors in resolving Moore’s First
Step Act motion, we will vacate and remand so that it may do so in the first instance. *
We therefore vacate the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part
Moore’s First Step Act motion and remand for further proceedings. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
The district court’s determination that Moore’s Guidelines range was unchanged
also implicates our decision in Collington, along with our decision in United States v.
Lancaster, 997 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2021). On remand, the court should consider
whether those decisions affect that determination.
3