United States of America v. Rodney Tyreal Wheeler

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY TYREAL WHEELER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00070-JPB-RWT-3)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 5, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Tyreal Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberley DeAnne Crockett, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Tyreal Wheeler appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a
sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 (“the Act”), Pub. L.
No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. On appeal, Wheeler does not challenge the court’s
dispositive determination that the motion was barred by § 404(c) of the Act, which
provides, inter alia, that “[n]o court shall entertain a motion made under this section to
reduce a sentence if the sentence was previously imposed or previously reduced in
accordance with the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of
2010.” 132 Stat. at 5222. Wheeler has therefore forfeited review of the court’s order
denying a sentence reduction.* See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,
177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit
rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Wheeler,
No. 3:07-cr-00070-JPB-RWT (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 19, 2023). 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
* To the extent the district court alternatively construed Wheeler’s motion as a
motion seeking compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), we discern no
abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of such relief. See United States v. Malone, 57
F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard).

-- 2 of 2 --