United States v. Matthews, 060821 FED4, 20-7635

Docket Nº20-7635
Opinion JudgePER CURIAM:
Party NameUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL F. MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.
AttorneyMichael F. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Judge PanelBefore NIEMEYER, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Case DateJune 08, 2021
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL F. MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-7635

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

June 8, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: May 17, 2021

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00226-REP-RCY-1)

Michael F. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.

Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael F. Matthews appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce Matthews' sentence. See United States v. Collington, F.3d,, No. 19-6721, 2021 WL 1608756, at *8 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2021) (stating that sentencing decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Matthews, No. 3:07-cr-00226-REP-RCY-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2020). 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

To continue reading

Request your trial