The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
19-60941•United States v. Riley
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
No. 19-60941
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
John Riley, also known as P. J.,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:08-CR-92-1
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
John Riley, federal prisoner # 15081-043, was convicted of possession
with intent to distribute more than five grams of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). He was initially sentenced to a 324-month term of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 8, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515555842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2020
No. 19-60941
2
imprisonment, but his sentence was twice reduced, and he is currently
serving a 210-month term of imprisonment. He moved for resentencing
under the First Step Act of 2018, § 404, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194,
5222 (2018). The district court denied the motion. We remand for the
limited purpose of allowing the district court to explain why it did so, and we
retain jurisdiction as is customary for limited remands. See, e.g., United States
v. Gomez, 905 F.3d 347, 354-56 (5th Cir. 2018).
Without a hearing, the district court denied the motion in an order
without giving any reasons. Though district courts need not always explain
why they have denied a motion, meaningful review is possible here only with
a statement of reasons for the denial. See Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d
1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989). Absent such a statement, we can only guess why
the motion was denied. We thus REMAND for the limited purpose of
allowing the district court to explain its reasons for the denial.
Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515555842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2020
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.