US v. Christopher Lancaster, No. 21-7256 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER LANCASTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00019-BO-1) Submitted: July 13, 2022 Decided: July 28, 2022 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In February 2020, Christopher Lancaster moved for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. The district court concluded that Lancaster was eligible for relief but exercised its discretion to deny the motion. We vacated the court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. See United States v. Lancaster, 997 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2021). On remand, the district court granted Lancaster’s motion in part, reducing his sentence from 180 to 176 months’ imprisonment. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the extent of the sentence reduction. See Concepcion v. United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, ___, No. 20-1650, 2022 WL 2295029, at *12 (U.S. June 27, 2022) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United States v. Lancaster, No. 4:09-cr-00019-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2021). 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.