Court Opinion

ID: 9403970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:00:58.764938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.197709
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6963      Doc: 21         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6963

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ALVIN GLASGOW, a/k/a Buju,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00222-LO-1; 1:19-cv-00082-
        LO)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alvin Glasgow, Appellant Pro Se. Jacqueline Romy Bechara, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6963       Doc: 21          Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Alvin Glasgow seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

        amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Glasgow also appeals from the same order granting

        his counseled motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and

        denying his remaining motions. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               Turning first to Glasgow’s appeal of the denial of relief on his amended § 2255

        motion, that portion of the district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

        judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of

        appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

        right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural

        grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is

        debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

        Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

        484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Glasgow has

        not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny Glasgow’s motion for a certificate of

        appealability and dismiss that portion of the appeal.

               Next, Glasgow also challenges the district court’s grant of his counseled 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. “[W]e review both grants and denials

        of compassionate release pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.” United States v.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6963       Doc: 21          Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 267 (4th Cir. 2022). However, “the invited error doctrine

        recognizes that a court cannot be asked by counsel to take a step in a case and later be

        convicted of error, because it has complied with such request.” United States v. Hasson,

        26 F.4th 610, 621 n.4 (4th Cir.) (cleaned up), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 310 (2022). Because

        the district court granted Glasgow’s exact requested relief of a sentence reduction, the

        invited error doctrine applies and he has thus waived the argument he seeks to advance on

        appeal. See United States v. Shea, 989 F.3d 271, 282 (4th Cir. 2021).

               We therefore affirm the portion of the district court’s order granting the counseled

        18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, deny Glasgow’s motions to appoint counsel and for a

        certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal of the portion of the district court’s order

        denying relief on the amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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 IN PART,
                                                                                 DISMISSED IN PART

                                                       3