Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06238/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06238-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kenneth Thomas Willoughby
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH THOMAS WILLOUGHBY, a/k/a Black,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00416-TLW-13)

Submitted: November 15, 2024 Decided: December 17, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Thomas Willoughby, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Coble Major, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6238 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Thomas Willoughby appeals the district court’s order denying his motions 

for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), (c)(2). We have reviewed 

the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Willoughby’s motion for compassionate release.

*

 See United States v. Centeno-Morales, 

90 F.4th 274, 280 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating standard). Willoughby argues that the district 

court erred in failing to acknowledge or consider his postsentencing rehabilitation efforts. 

Although the district court’s analysis was limited, Willoughby’s case was conceptually 

simple, particularly given the brevity of his arguments and the lack of evidentiary support 

regarding his rehabilitation claims. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190-91 (4th 

Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Willoughby, 

No. 4:11-cr-00416-TLW-13 (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2024). 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

* Willoughby did not challenge in his informal brief on appeal the remainder of the 

district court’s order and, therefore, has forfeited appellate review as to any other claims. 

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal 

brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues 

preserved in that brief.”). 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6238 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 2