United States of America v. SIGMUND DIAOLA JAMES, a/k/a Sig

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7810

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SIGMUND DIAOLA JAMES, a/k/a Sig,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00944-MBS-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 26, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sigmund Diaola James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Sigmund Diaola James appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a
reduction of his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat.
5194. James was found guilty in 2009 of multiple offenses stemming from his role in a
drug trafficking and money laundering conspiracy, including a count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and distribute 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine and
50 grams or more of crack cocaine. The district court sentenced him to life in prison on
the conspiracy count.
The First Step Act provides that a court that imposed a sentence for a “covered
offense”—defined as a violation before August 3, 2010, of a law whose statutory penalties
were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010—may impose a reduced
sentence as if the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect when the covered offense was
committed. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(a), (b), 132 Stat. at 5222; United States v.
Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 176 (4th Cir. 2019). As is relevant here, the Fair Sentencing Act
amended 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (2018) by increasing the amounts of crack cocaine
necessary to trigger the mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking offenses. See
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260, 269 (2012).
The district court concluded that James was not eligible for a reduction of his
sentence because the Fair Sentencing Act did not affect the statutory penalties for
convictions involving powder cocaine. But the district court did not have the benefit of
our recent decision in United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258, 263-64 (4th Cir. 2020), in
which we held that a conspiracy offense involving 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine

3

and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine—the same offense for which James was
convicted—was a covered offense under the First Step Act even though the Fair Sentencing
Act did not modify the statutory penalties for offenses involving powder cocaine.
In light of our recent decision in Gravatt, we vacate the district court’s order and
remand for further proceedings. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED