Court Opinion

ID: 9391088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:23.999375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.400585
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7293      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7293

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        OMAR DIAZ-RIOS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00021-REP-2)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Omar Diaz-Rios, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7293      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Omar Diaz-Rios appeals the district court’s order denying his renewed 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). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz-Rios’ compassionate release motion.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Diaz-Rios, No. 3:10-cr-

        00021-REP-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2022). We deny Diaz-Rios’ motions to appoint counsel.

        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