Court Opinion

ID: 9963604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 21:00:41.165194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:55.021536
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6302      Doc: 37         Filed: 04/24/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6302

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ODASSIS MICHAEL THOMAS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00175-HEH-3)

        Submitted: April 12, 2024                                         Decided: April 24, 2024

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Gerald T. Zerkin, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber,
        United States Attorney, Olivia L. Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Aidan Grano-
        Mickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6302         Doc: 37      Filed: 04/24/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Odassis Michael Thomas appeals the district court’s memorandum order denying

        his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court

        concluded that Thomas failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for

        relief and that the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors independently weighed against early

        release. We have reviewed the record and Thomas’ arguments on appeal and conclude that

        the district court did not abuse its discretion denying compassionate release. See United

        States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). We note

        that the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis was sufficiently well reasoned and supported by

        the record. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 833 (4th Cir. 2022). Accordingly,

        we affirm. 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 in the

        decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     2