Court Opinion

ID: 9382266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:23.651711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.101383
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7300      Doc: 6         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7300

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        GREGORY D. ANDERSON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00260-MOC-DSC-1)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gregory D. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7300         Doc: 6     Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Gregory D. Anderson 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. While this appeal was pending,

        Anderson was released from custody.         Therefore, his appeal as it relates to the

        circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic is now moot. See United States v.

        Shorter, 27 F.4th 572, 575-76 (7th Cir. 2022). And while we have jurisdiction over the

        remainder of the appeal because Anderson requested that the district court terminate his

        supervised release, see United States v. Chestnut, 989 F.3d 222, 225 (2d Cir. 2021), a

        movant may not challenge the validity of his underlying convictions or sentence in a

        compassionate release motion, see United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270-72 (4th

        Cir. 2022). Therefore, we dismiss this appeal in part and affirm the district court’s order

        in part. 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.

                                                                            DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                             AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                    2