United States v. Kenneth Reid

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Kenneth Reid

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7209 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7209 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Roshaun Reid appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled

“Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)” and motion to expedite resentencing hearing. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Reid asserted that this court had vacated

his criminal judgment and sentence in appeal No. 19-7803 and requested resentencing and

appointment of counsel for a resentencing hearing. In United States v. Reid,

823 F. App’x 223

, 224 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-7803), this court determined that Reid was eligible to

receive a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, vacated the

district court’s order denying Reid’s § 404(b) motion, and remanded for further

proceedings. This court’s opinion in Reid, however, did not vacate Reid’s criminal

judgment or require that Reid be brought to court for a resentencing hearing. We thus

affirm the district court’s denial order. United States v. Reid, No. 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1

(D.S.C. Nov. 15, 2023). 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished