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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED