USCA4 Appeal: 19-7782 Doc: 40 Filed: 01/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7782
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY LORENZO WYATT, JR., a/k/a Rodney Lorenzo Wyatt,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00133-REP-RCY-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: January 11, 2023
Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE
OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. G.
Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7782 Doc: 40 Filed: 01/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Lorenzo Wyatt, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“the Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-
391, 132 Stat. 5194. Although the court found Wyatt eligible for relief under the Act, the
court exercised its discretion and declined to reduce Wyatt’s term of imprisonment. In
denying Wyatt’s motion, however, the district court did not demonstrate that it considered
Wyatt’s nonfrivolous argument that his Sentencing Guidelines range has been significantly
reduced since his original sentencing. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389,
2405 (2022) (holding that, although a district court is not required “to make a point-by-
point rebuttal of the parties’ arguments,” it must “demonstrate that it has considered the
arguments before it”).
Because the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision
in Concepcion when it ruled on Wyatt’s motion, we vacate and remand so the court may
reassess Wyatt’s motion. By this disposition, we express no view on the ultimate merits
of Wyatt’s motion. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2