United States v. Tyrone Davis

── United States v. Tyrone Davis ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-6432 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/12/2026 Pg: 1 of 19 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6432 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TYRONE A. DAVIS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00100-DJN-1) Argued: March 19, 2025 Decided: May 12, 2026 Before THACKER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge Thacker and Judge Richardson joined. ARGUED: Cameron Scott Davis, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. James Reed Sawyers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lawrence D. Rosenberg, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Vetan Kapoor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6432 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/12/2026 Pg: 2 of 19 RUSHING, Circuit Judge: Relying on a retroactive amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Tyrone Davis moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The same district court judge who had sentenced Davis two years earlier denied his motion, finding him eligible for a reduction but ultimately concluding that “the applicable § 3553(a) factors” and Davis’s “disciplinary record . . . while incarcerated” weighed against reducing his sentence. J.A. 96. Davis appeals. He claims the district court failed to justify his “above-Guidelines sentence” or consider his post-sentencing evidence of rehabilitation. We disagree on both fronts. A motion to reduce a final sentence does not trigger a plenary resentencing or the explanatory requirements attendant to such proceedings. Because the district court here faithfully adhered to the requirements of Section 3582(c)(2), we affirm. I. A. In March 2021, Richmond police officers arrested Davis for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Davis was exiting a convenience store when an officer noticed a weapon on his person and approached him to ask about the suspected gun. But Davis refused to stop, and when the officer tried to detain him, Davis resisted. In the ensuing scuffle, Davis appeared to reach for the gun and threatened to fight and spit on one of the arresting officers. After apprehending Davis, the officers searched him and recovered a loaded “privately made firearm” and distributable amounts of fentanyl. Davis was charged with possessing ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6432 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/12/2026 Pg: 3 of 19 § 922(g)(1), and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). He pled guilty to the ammunition charge. In preparation for sentencing, the Probation Office determined that Davis had a criminal history score of 5 and category of III, based in part on “status points” added because Davis was on probation