Court Opinion

ID: 9893110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 21:00:38.995748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:41.929340
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6389      Doc: 17         Filed: 10/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6389

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MICHAEL JAMES TAYLOR,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00022-MR-WCM-10)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 24, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael James Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6389         Doc: 17       Filed: 10/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael James Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). After reviewing the record, we

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Taylor failed

        to establish an extraordinary and compelling reason for granting compassionate release or

        that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant reducing Taylor’s sentence. See United

        States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Taylor, No. 2:11-cr-

        00022-MR-WCM-10 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2023). We deny Taylor’s motions 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