United States v. Cleveland Nelson
19-6708
| 4th Cir. | Sep 21, 2021Background:
- Nelson appealed district court orders granting partial sentence reduction under §404 of the First Step Act; counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues.
- Nelson filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing the district court abused its discretion by not preserving the original proportional sentencing framework and that his reduced imprisonment term remained excessive.
- The district court’s May 9, 2019 order was superseded by an amended May 23, 2019 order under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a); Nelson completed his prison term and began supervised release during the appeal.
- The court identified potential nonfrivolous issues (mootness, Guidelines/drug-weight findings, and reasonableness under Chambers/Collington/Lancaster) and ordered supplemental briefing; Nelson’s counsel later conceded the appeal was moot as to the imprisonment term.
- The panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction over portions of the appeal (imprisonment reduction) as moot, found no reversible error on the remaining issues, dismissed the appeal in part, and affirmed in part (affirming the reduced supervised-release term).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal from May 9 order and challenge to imprisonment reduction | Nelson maintained the district court abused discretion and his reduced imprisonment is excessive | Government and Nelson’s counsel argued the May 23 amended order superseded May 9 and Nelson already completed imprisonment, making relief impossible | Appeal as to May 9 order and imprisonment reduction is moot and dismissed |
| Whether district court plainly erred in revised Guidelines/drug-weight findings | Nelson argued the court erred in its drug-quantity findings affecting the revised Guidelines range | Government contended no reversible error; Anders review found no meritorious basis | No reversible error identified; challenge not sustained |
| Whether the amended imprisonment term is unreasonable under Chambers/Collington/Lancaster | Nelson argued sentence remained excessive and district court should have maintained original proportional framework | Government and counsel argued relief is moot and district court acted within discretion | Imprisonment-term reasonableness challenge is moot |
| Whether the reduced supervised-release term is reviewable and reasonable | Nelson sought relief as to supervised-release term reduction | Government maintained supervised-release remains reviewable and properly imposed | Court affirmed the May 23 order as to supervised release; no meritorious grounds found |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to brief appeal when no meritorious issues exist)
- Catawba Riverkeeper Found. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 843 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2016) (Article III mootness/case-or-controversy principle)
- Fleet Feet, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., 986 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2021) (events during appeal that prevent effective relief render an appeal moot)
- United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61 (4th Cir. 2018) (completion of imprisonment does not always moot challenge when supervised release continues)
- United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2021) (district courts cannot impose First Step Act reductions below statutory minimums)
- United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020) (reasonableness review for First Step Act sentence reductions)
- United States v. Lancaster, 997 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2021) (reasonableness standard applied to amended First Step Act sentences)