Court Opinion

ID: 9375212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:25.173692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.806349
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7064      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7064

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KAMAL QAZAH, a/k/a Kamal Zaki Qazah,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
        Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cr-00014-JPJ-2)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kamal Qazah, Appellant Pro Se. Whitney Demain Pierce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7064         Doc: 10      Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kamal Qazah appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of

        a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d

        326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the

        reasons for the denial. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.

        Qazah, No. 2:17-cr-00014-JPJ-2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 25, 2022). We also deny Qazah’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