Court Opinion

ID: 9396232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 21:00:46.658263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.335327
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6786      Doc: 10         Filed: 05/18/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6786

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        EQUAN CORNELIUS DUNSTON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00022-D-1)

        Submitted: December 13, 2022                                      Decided: May 18, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Equan Cornelius Dunston, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6786         Doc: 10        Filed: 05/18/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Equan Cornelius Dunston appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Having reviewed the record,

        we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the pertinent 18

        U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against compassionate release. See United

        States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly,

        we affirm. ∗ 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

               ∗
                The district court also denied Dunston’s motion for a sentence reduction under
        § 404 of the First Step Act. But Dunston has waived review of that decision because he
        does not raise a challenge in his informal brief. 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.”).

                                                       2