Court Opinion

ID: 9882021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:39.990573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:19.050285
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6386      Doc: 6        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6386

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        EDWARD LEE MOODY, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00154-RGD-DEM-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Edward Lee Moody, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Emily Rebecca Gantt, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6386         Doc: 6      Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Edward Lee Moody, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order

        denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble,

        992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). We have reviewed the

        record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm

        the district court’s order. United States v. Moody, No. 2:18-cr-00154-RGD-DEM-1 (E.D.

        Va. Apr. 5, 2023). 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