Court Opinion

ID: 9837963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:28.49464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.656025
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6424      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6424

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        QUADRICK MONTRELL EVERETTE, a/k/a Quat,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00043-D-1)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Quadrick Montrell Everette, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6424      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Quadrick Montrell Everette appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First

        Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Upon review

        of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that

        the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate release. See

        United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 195 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review).

        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