United States of America v. Michael Anthony Locklear

25-6742Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit30 juin 2026

Texte intégral

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.