Court Opinion

ID: 9408851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 21:00:36.406158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.272801
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6094      Doc: 6         Filed: 07/12/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6094

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DARRIN HOWARD MERRITT,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00209-FL-1)

        Submitted: June 14, 2023                                            Decided: July 12, 2023

        Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Darrin Howard Merritt, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6094      Doc: 6        Filed: 07/12/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Darrin Howard Merritt appeals the district court’s order dismissing his motion for

        an award of $500 in “gate money” on his release from prison without prejudice for lack of

        jurisdiction. The district court determined the Director of the Bureau of Prisons has the

        exclusive authority to determine the discretionary gratuity up to $500 that may be provided

        under the statute. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See 18 U.S.C.

        § 3624(d)(2); 28 C.F.R. § 571.20; cf. Murray Energy Corp. v. Adm’r of EPA, 861 F.3d 529,

        537 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United

        States v. Merritt, No. 5:12-cr-00209-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 2021). 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