USCA4 Appeal: 24-6892 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6892

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOMINICK LARENZO JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (6:16-cr-00761-TMC-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominick Larenzo Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6892 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Dominick Larenzo Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his

(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the Sentencing

Guidelines. * We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly

determined that Johnson was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)

because Amendment 821 did not have the effect of lowering his applicable Guidelines

range. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Johnson,

No. 6:16-cr-00761-TMC-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 26, 2024). 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

* According to Johnson, a reduction to his sentence under Amendment 821 was warranted because the Amendment applied to him; his guilty plea to a firearm possession offense was unintelligently made and invalid following Rehaif v. United States,

(2019); and the predicate convictions subjecting him to a prison sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act,

(e), were invalid. The district court denied § 3582(c)(2) relief on the ground that Johnson was not eligible for a sentence reduction because application of the Amendment did not lower his applicable Guidelines range. The court also determined that, to the extent Johnson was seeking to reiterate or expand on arguments challenging his criminal judgment that were raised in a prior

motion to vacate, it lacked jurisdiction over such arguments given Johnson’s failure to obtain authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. The court thus dismissed those arguments. On appeal, Johnson does not challenge the district court’s § 2255 dismissal ruling.

2