Court Opinion

ID: 9410333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 21:00:36.329332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.181838
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6426      Doc: 17         Filed: 07/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6426

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KEVIN HORSEY, a/k/a What What,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00453-GLR-9)

        Submitted: June 14, 2023                                          Decided: July 19, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kevin Horsey, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Corwin McLane, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6426      Doc: 17          Filed: 07/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kevin Horsey appeals the district court’s order denying his third motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). ∗ Upon review, we discern no

        abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of compassionate release. See United States

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

        affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Horsey, No. 1:16-cr-00453-GLR-9 (D.

        Md. Mar. 21, 2022).      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

               ∗
                  Horsey also argues that the district court did not address the request for
        appointment of counsel embedded within his motion. We find no reversible error. Because
        Horsey ably presented his straightforward arguments for compassionate release without
        the assistance of counsel, the interests of justice did not require counsel’s appointment. See
        United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000) (observing that appointment of
        counsel in § 3582(c) proceedings is discretionary)

                                                      2