USA v. John Riley, No. 19-60941 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 8, 2020.
Download PDF
Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515665508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 8, 2020 No. 19-60941 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus John Riley, also known as P. J., Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:08-CR-92-1 Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* John Riley, federal prisoner # 15081-043, challenges the district court’s order denying his motion for resentencing under the First Step Act of 2018, § 404, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). Riley * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515665508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020 No. 19-60941 contends: his motion did not receive a complete review on the merits; and the order denying his motion lacked any explanation or review of his claim. A district court’s discretionary denial of relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act is, generally, reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2019). On limited remand, the district court explained that it had denied Riley’s motion for resentencing because his sentence “has previously been reduced by all applicable guideline amendments”. Insofar as Riley maintains the court failed to consider the merits of his motion for a sentence reduction, his contention fails. Id. at 321–22 (denying motion for reduced sentence under § 404 because, inter alia, “[defendant] had his day in court. He filed a detailed motion explaining why he should get a new sentence; the government responded; the court denied the motion; and, on limited remand, it explained why. . . . The procedures here were blameless”.). Alternatively, if Riley is challenging the court’s reasoning for its denial, his contention is waived for inadequate briefing. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010) ( “a failure to brief . . . constitutes waiver”). He claims his motion “never received a complete review on the merits as required”. As discussed above, on limited remand, the court provided an adequate explanation for its denial. (In addition, he concedes his claims lack merit. See Jackson, 945 F.3d at 321– 22.) 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.
