Court Opinion

ID: 9555499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-13 02:01:49.1015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:03.720322
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7086      Doc: 23         Filed: 08/11/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7086

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHARLES WILLIAM MASTERS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cr-00002-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: July 28, 2023                                          Decided: August 11, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jenny R. Thoma, Research & Writing Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
        PUBLIC DEFENER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United
        States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Stephen Warner, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7086       Doc: 23         Filed: 08/11/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles William Masters appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Having reviewed the

        record and Masters’ claims, we find no reversible error in the district court’s exercise of its

        discretion to deny relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States

        v. Masters, No. 2:18-cr-00002-TSK-MJA-1 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 2, 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