Opinion
24-6638
11-19-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD SHAW, Defendant-Appellant.
Richard Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Mitchell Scheff, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 14, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00010-JPJ-PMS-2)
Richard Shaw, Appellant Pro Se.
Jason Mitchell Scheff, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Shaw appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 821, in part, provides for a two-level reduction in offense level for certain defendants with zero criminal history points. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Supp. App. C., amend No. 821, part B, subpart 1 (2023). This reduction may be applied retroactively. See USSG § 1B1.10(d). Pursuant to USSG § 4C1.1(A), a defendant is eligible for an adjustment in his offense level only if he "meets all of the [listed] criteria." One of the listed criteria requires that the defendant did not receive a leadership role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1 and did not engage in a continuing criminal enterprise. USSG § 4C1.1(a)(10). As Shaw received a leadership role enhancement at his original sentencing, the district court found that he did not meet the criteria listed in § 4C1.1(a). See, e.g., United States v. Cervantes, 109 F.4th 944, 946-48 (7th Cir. 2024) (concluding that application of role enhancement disqualifies a defendant from receiving a reduction under § 4C1.1(a)(10)).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. United States v. Shaw, No. 1:14-cr-00010-JPJ-PMS-2 (W.D. Va., June 10, 2024). 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.