Court Opinion

ID: 9785003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:00:53.455407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:14.525747
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6285      Doc: 14         Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-6285

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LARRY RODGERS, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00218-M-1)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry Rodgers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6285      Doc: 14         Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Larry Rodgers, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse

        of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States

        v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard of review and outlining

        steps for evaluating compassionate release motions). Accordingly, we deny Rodgers’

        motion for abeyance and affirm the district court’s order. 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