Court Opinion

ID: 9914370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-30 21:01:11.170456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:58.340491
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6387      Doc: 15         Filed: 12/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6387

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TELLY SURVAR ARMSTRONG, a/k/a Telly Savalas Armstrong,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00158-FDW-1)

        Submitted: November 9, 2023                                 Decided: December 29, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Telly Survar Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6387      Doc: 15         Filed: 12/29/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Telly Survar Armstrong appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion

        for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First

        Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Armstrong was

        indicted on seven counts stemming from three armed robberies. He agreed to plead guilty

        to two counts of possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence,

        in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Armstrong was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment

        for the first count and a consecutive 25-year term for the second count. In his amended

        motion for a sentence reduction, Armstrong asserted that under the First Step Act’s

        amendment to § 924(c) sentencing, he would only be subject to a combined 14-year

        mandatory minimum for his two § 924(c) convictions if sentenced today. The district court

        found that Armstrong’s lengthy sentence was an extraordinary and compelling reason for

        a sentence reduction, but concluded that the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

        factors did not warrant a reduced sentence. We affirm.

               Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) authorizes a district court to reduce a term of imprisonment

        if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” A district court’s

        ruling on a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v.

        Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023). “‘In doing so, we ensure that the district court

        has not acted arbitrarily or irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and has

        conducted the necessary analysis for exercising its discretion.’” Id. (quoting United

        States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021)). The district court must determine

        whether the prisoner has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6387      Doc: 15         Filed: 12/29/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        that his release is appropriate under the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

        Id. at 128.

               We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not warrant a sentence reduction. The court considered

        the violent conduct underlying the two § 924(c) convictions, Armstrong’s lengthy and

        almost-continuous criminal history dating back to 1993 when Armstrong was 18 years old,

        and Armstrong’s many prison infractions since his convictions. The court had good reason

        to declare that Armstrong was not yet ready to comply with the law. We also conclude that

        Armstrong’s claim that the robberies underlying the § 924(c) charges were not crimes of

        violence is without merit. United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 265-66 (4th Cir. 2019).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Armstrong’s motion to

        reinstate and reconsider the order denying compassionate release. 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

                                                     3