Court Opinion

ID: 9368352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:00:56.473408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.220758
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6342      Doc: 23         Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6342

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        REGGIE COLIN BLOUNT,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00109-D-1)

        Submitted: January 27, 2023                                       Decided: February 2, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Jaclyn L. Tarlton, Assistant Federal
        Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Rudy E. Renfer,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6342       Doc: 23         Filed: 02/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Reggie Colin Blount appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. Blount argues that the district court erred in considering his plea

        agreement and in failing to address one of his arguments.

               We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse

        of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.

        383 (2021). The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Blount’s plea

        agreement. See United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 384-85 (4th Cir. 2023). Although the

        court did not address Blount’s argument concerning his age and reduced risk of recidivism,

        a district court need not address every argument raised by a defendant in a compassionate

        release motion. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021). Instead, “the

        touchstone must be whether the district court set forth enough to satisfy our court that it

        has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal

        decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Id. at 190

        (cleaned up). The district court thoroughly analyzed the motion and explained why a

        reduced sentence would not be consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Thus, the

        court did not abuse its discretion in failing to explicitly address this one argument.

               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