Opinion
22-6635
06-23-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely, Defendant-Appellant.
Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 19, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-CCE-1)
Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raoul Lafond appeals from the district court's order denying his motions for a reduction in sentence pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and for appointment of counsel. We affirm.
Under the First Step Act, "[n]o court shall entertain a motion made under [section 404] to reduce a sentence . . . if a previous motion made under this section to reduce the sentence was, after the date of enactment of this Act, denied after a complete review of the motion on the merits." § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222. Our review discloses that Lafond filed a prior motion for a reduction in sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act. After a complete review of the merits of that prior motion, the district court granted relief in part and denied relief in part. Accordingly, the district court was without authority to consider the instant motion for a reduction in sentence.
As to Lafond's motions for compassionate release and for appointment of counsel, we have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (providing standard for compassionate release motions), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 383 (2021); United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2000) (noting that district court has discretion to appoint counsel in proceedings under § 3582(c) if interests of justice so require).
We therefore affirm the district court's order denying Lafond's motions. 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.