United States v. Michael Locklear

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6742 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6742

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY LOCKLEAR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:19-cr-00196-D-1)

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Locklear, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6742 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Locklear appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Part A of Amendment 821 limits the impact of “status points,” which are “additional criminal history points given to defendants for the fact of having committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.7 (2024).

“We review a district court’s decision [whether] to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Our review of the record reveals no error. The court understood its authority to reduce Locklear’s sentence and recognized Locklear’s postsentencing rehabilitative conduct, but declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Locklear, No. 7:19-cr-00196-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2025). 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