U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2020

United States v. Alphonso Arthur Edwards

United States v. Alphonso Arthur Edwards
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided July 23, 2020

United States v. Alphonso Arthur Edwards

Opinion

Case: 19-15115 Date Filed: 07/23/2020 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-15115 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00081-JDW-CPT-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALPHONSO ARTHUR EDWARDS, agent of A1,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (July 23, 2020) Case: 19-15115 Date Filed: 07/23/2020 Page: 2 of 3

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Alphonso Edwards appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). The district court ruled that Edwards was eligible for a sentence reduction under the Act but denied his motion to reduce his sentence. Edwards argues that the district court erred by denying his motion without holding a hearing where he was present. We affirm.

Edwards’s argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Denson, No. 19-11696 (11th Cir. June 24, 2020), where we held that a defendant does not have a right to be present when the district court considers a motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. Id., slip op. at 1, 4–5. We rejected the same argument that Edwards makes: that the “significant discretion” exercised by the district court under the Act makes its ruling a “critical stage” that requires a movant’s presence. See United States v. Brown, 879 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018).

We held that “a sentencing modification under the First Step Act does not qualify as a ‘critical stage in the proceedings’” because the district court conducts a limited review of a sentence instead of a full resentencing. Denson, No. 19-11696, slip op. at 6–7. No error occurred when the district court denied Edwards’s motion without holding a hearing where he was present.

Case: 19-15115 Date Filed: 07/23/2020 Page: 3 of 3

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.