Court Opinion

ID: 9412354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:43.682538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:13.123264
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6450      Doc: 6         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6450

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DUSHAWN L. GARDNER, a/k/a Michael Archer, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Shawn,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-D-5)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                            Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dushawn Levert Gardner, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6450      Doc: 6         Filed: 07/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dushawn Levert Gardner appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. After review of the record, we

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that such release

        was not warranted in light of relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors after balancing those

        factors against Gardner’s medical conditions and the conditions of his confinement, the

        COVID-19 pandemic, Gardner’s rehabilitative efforts, release plan, recidivism risk, age at

        the time of his criminal conduct, and his arguments about the need to avoid unwarranted

        sentencing disparities. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (noting standard of review, conclusions district court must draw to grant motion, and

        guideposts for determining whether court has abused its discretion in considering 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) factors). Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. United States v. Gardner,

        No. 4:95-cr-00041-D-5 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2023). 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

                                                      2