Court Opinion

ID: 9947145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:44.674198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:00.249771
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6597      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6597

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMIE M. HARGROVE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00249-BO-1)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                      Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jamie M. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6597      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamie M. Hargrove appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release.     We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.       United States v. Hargrove, No.

        5:11-cr-00249-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. May 22, 2023); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th

        Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be

        considered, absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of

        justice). We deny Hargrove’s motion 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