Court Opinion

ID: 9882014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:32.369951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.928286
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6710      Doc: 8        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6710

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MOHAMMED MODIN HASAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00056-MSD-FBS-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mohammed Modin Hasan, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-6710      Doc: 8         Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mohammed Modin Hasan appeals the district court’s order denying his second

        motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). After reviewing the

        record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hasan’s

        motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (stating

        standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Hasan,

        No. 2:10-cr-00056-MSD-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2023).                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