US v. Brian Johnson, No. 19-7028 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7028 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRIAN ANTWANINE JOHNSON, a/k/a Fudd, Defendant - Appellee. No. 19-7042 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOUGLAS WASHINGTON, a/k/a Slink, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:98-cr-00283-LMB-1; 1:09-cr-00121LMB-5) Submitted: April 21, 2020 Decided: April 30, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, the Government appeals the district court’s orders granting the motions of Brian Antwanine Johnson and Douglas Washington for sentence reductions under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible error. See United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Johnson, No. 1:98-cr-00283-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. July 3, 2019); United States v. Washington, No. 1:09-cr-00121-LMB-5 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2019). In light of this disposition, we deny as moot the Appellees’ motions for summary affirmance. 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 3

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.