Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Anthony Dewayne GILLIS, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-6944

Decided: January 21, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Anthony Dewayne Gillis, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Anthony D. Gillis appeals the district court's order denying his motions for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, and to expedite the decision.* Although the court found Gillis eligible for relief on one count of conviction, the court exercised its discretion and declined to reduce Gillis’ term of imprisonment. In so doing, the court accurately described the record, considered Gillis’ new Sentencing Guidelines range, evaluated the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and explained its reasons for denying the motion. On this record, we discern no abuse of the court's discretion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 495-97 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First Step Act motion for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Gillis, No. 3:05-cr-00098-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. June 8, 2020).

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.



FOOTNOTE.   Gillis requested expedited relief in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. On appeal, however, Gillis does not challenge the denial of his motion to expedite relief. We confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gillis’ informal brief does not challenge the denial of expedited relief, he has forfeited appellate review of this issue. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard