US v. Wayne Thompson, No. 20-6001 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6001 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WAYNE D. THOMPSON, a/k/a Buck Naked, a/k/a Wayne Donnell Thompson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00309-REP-1) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wayne D. Thompson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion seeking a sentence modification under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 502 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Even assuming . . . that a district court in a First Step Act sentence reduction proceeding has equivalent duties to a court initially sentencing a defendant, . . . [w]e are satisfied that the district court considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Thompson, No. 3:08-cr-00309-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 2019). 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

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.