Court Opinion

ID: 9895147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:43.074043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:21.729043
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6889      Doc: 5         Filed: 11/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6889

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-WCM-1)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6889      Doc: 5         Filed: 11/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., 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 Burgess’ arguments. 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. Burgess, No. 1:09-cr-00017-GCM-WCM-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 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