United States v. Frederick Sellers

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7101 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7101 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDERICK LYNN SELLERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (4:01-cr-00058-TMC-1) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Lynn Sellers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7101 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Frederick Lynn Sellers appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) or a reduction in sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Sellers’ request for compassionate release. See United States v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647, 653-55, 657-59, 661 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating standard of review, addressing determinations district court must make to grant relief, and addressing parameters governing district court’s consideration of factors raised for relief). As for Sellers’ request for reduction in sentence under § 404(b) of the FSA, we note that, under the FSA, “[n]o court shall entertain a motion made under [§ 404] to reduce a sentence . . . if a previous motion made under this section to reduce the sentence was, after the date of enactment of this Act, denied after a complete review of the motion on the merits.” § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222. Our review discloses that Sellers filed a previous motion for reduction in sentence under § 404(b) of the FSA. After a complete review of the merits of that previous motion, the district court denied relief. Accordingly, the district court was without authority to consider the instant request for a reduction in sentence under § 404(b). We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying Sellers’ motion. United States v. Sellers, No. 4:01-cr-00058-TMC-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 29, 2024). We dispense with oral 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7101 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 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 3