Court Opinion

ID: 4855375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-24 19:01:00.682322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:16.650508
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-6527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

JOHN ANDREW PIPKIN,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00391-D-1)

Submitted: August 19, 2021                                        Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Andrew Pipkin, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       John Andrew Pipkin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). “A

district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider

judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous

factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d

151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record

shows that the district court properly considered the circumstances presented by the

pandemic, Pipkin’s health conditions, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, before denying

Pipkin’s motion. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. 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