Court Opinion

ID: 9837960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:25.493135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.653044
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6244      Doc: 11         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6244

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RASHAUN ALLEN JUDGE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00301-RMG-1)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rashaun Allen Judge, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Evans Limehouse, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6244         Doc: 11     Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Rashaun Allen Judge appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of

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

        326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not

        abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United

        States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation

        required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s order. 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