Full text
United States v. Terrance James
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7077 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7077
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRANCE GERARD JAMES, a/k/a Robert Daniels, a/k/a TJ, a/k/a Hassan,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:94-cr-00163-RBS-6; 2:20-cv- 00369-RBS)
Submitted: April 23, 2024 Decided: May 16, 2024
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrance Gerard James, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Joseph Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-7077 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Gerard James appeals the district court’s order granting in part his motion
for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132
Stat. 5194. * The district court reduced James’ sentence on his conviction for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), but declined
to reduce his sentence on his conviction for murder on behalf of a continuing criminal
enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) (Count 3). James contends that the
district court could have reduced his sentence on both counts under the sentencing package
doctrine. We agree and thus vacate the district court’s order and remand for further
proceedings.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision as to whether to grant
a reduction under the First Step Act. United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497
(4th Cir. 2020). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or
irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of
discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.”
United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
While this appeal was pending, we held “that the district court has the discretion to
reduce both covered and noncovered offenses under the First Step Act if they function as
* We previously dismissed the portion of James’ appeal challenging the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. James, No. 20-7077 (4th Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) (unpublished order).
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7077 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
a package.” United States v. Richardson, 96 F.4th 659, 665 (4th Cir. 2024). And it is the
“district judge [who] is best suited to determine in the first instance whether she sentenced
defendant’s charges as a package.” Id. The district court did not have the benefit of our
decision in Richardson when it denied James relief on Count 3.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further
proceedings. By this disposition, we express no view on whether James is entitled to a
reduced sentence on Count 3, leaving that decision to the district court in the first instance.
We deny as moot the Government’s motion to place this case in abeyance for Richardson
and 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.