Opinion
20-7481
08-27-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTRANTRINO LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Michael Antrantrino Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Banumathi Rangarajan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 16, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:01-cr-00221-H-1)
Michael Antrantrino Lee, Appellant Pro Se.
Banumathi Rangarajan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Michael Antrantrino Lee appeals the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Lee argues on appeal that the district court erred in calculating his new range under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
"We review the scope of a district court's sentencing authority under the First Step Act de novo." United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667, 671 (4th Cir. 2020). When a sentence reduction is permitted, we review for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to grant or deny the motion. See United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2019). After determining that a sentence reduction is both permitted and warranted, the district court must recalculate the defendant's Guidelines range before imposing a new sentence. Chambers, 956 F.3d at 672.
Upon review, we discern no error warranting reversal in the district court's application of the Guidelines. Accordingly, we grant Lee's motion for leave to file his reply brief out of time and affirm the district court's judgment. United States v. Lee, No. 5:01-cr-00221-H-1 (E.D. N.C. Sept. 24, 2020). We deny Lee's motions for abeyance, to appoint counsel, and to remand. 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