Court Opinion

ID: 9384758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 21:01:05.271214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.299551
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7143      Doc: 12         Filed: 04/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7143

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BARKLEY GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        New Bern. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-D-8)

        Submitted: February 28, 2023                                       Decided: April 3, 2023

        Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Barkley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-7143     Doc: 12         Filed: 04/03/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Barkley Gardner appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review the court’s order for

        abuse of discretion. United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023). Upon

        review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination that

        the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant Gardner’s release. Accordingly, we affirm

        the court’s order. We also grant Gardner’s motion to amend his informal brief. 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