Court Opinion

ID: 9895144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:40.508346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:24.094473
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6779      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6779

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANTWAN RICARDO CONSTANT,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00161-D-2)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Antwan Ricardo Constant, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6779         Doc: 7     Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Antwan Ricardo Constant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and for a sentence reduction under

        § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. On

        appeal, Constant challenges only the denial of his motion for compassionate release. 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.”). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion in denying Constant’s motion. See United States v. Malone,

        57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s judgment.       United States v. Constant, No. 5:06-cr-00161-D-2 (E.D.N.C.

        July 21, 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