US v. Robert Joyner, No. 19-6506 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6506 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT JOYNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00016-MBS-1) Submitted: December 5, 2019 Decided: January 13, 2020 Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew S. Miner, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Kane, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Joyner appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (FSA). The Government did not oppose Joyner’s motion in the district court and it concedes on appeal that Joyner is eligible for relief under the FSA. In light of the Government’s concession, we vacate the district court’s order denying Joyner’s motion for a sentence reduction and remand the matter to the district court so the court may determine whether, given the Government’s concession, Joyner should be resentenced under the FSA. We grant Joyner’s unopposed motion to expedite a decision in this appeal and direct the Clerk’s Office to issue the mandate forthwith. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.