Court Opinion

ID: 9381459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:10.631653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.696675
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7049      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7049

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JASON M. WILLIAMS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-00831-JFA-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jason M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7049      Doc: 9         Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jason M. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release.           We review the denial of a

        compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d

        326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record in

        conjunction with Williams’ arguments on appeal and discern no abuse of discretion in the

        court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Williams,

        No. 3:13-cr-00831-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 23, 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