Court Opinion

ID: 9901529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 21:00:31.272368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:34.182142
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6906      Doc: 6          Filed: 11/20/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6906

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KEITH PYNDELL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00024-AJT-1)

        Submitted: October 20, 2023                                 Decided: November 20, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Keith Pyndell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6906      Doc: 6         Filed: 11/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Keith Pyndell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Because Pyndell does not dispute

        the district court’s finding that neither his medical conditions nor his family circumstances

        constituted an extraordinary and compelling basis for relief, we consider those issues

        waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The

        informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited

        to issues preserved in that brief.”). In addition, we agree with the court’s determination

        that Pyndell cannot use a compassionate release motion to attack the validity of his criminal

        judgment. United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2022).

               Accordingly, we 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