Court Opinion

ID: 9396873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:26.313488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.682524
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7079        Doc: 7         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-7079

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

                        v.

        NIKIJA JACKSON, a/k/a Jermaine,

                               Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:16-cr-00069-JFA-5)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                               Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. ∗

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nikija Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

        ∗
            The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7079      Doc: 7         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nikija Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his third 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order

        granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States

        v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). We have

        reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. We

        therefore affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Jackson, No. 3:16-cr-00069-

        JFA-5 (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 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

                                                    2