Court Opinion

ID: 9401137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:34.316726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.935996
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6226      Doc: 7        Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-6226

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JARVIS LAMONT PATE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00056-CCE-1)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                             Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jarvis Lamont Pate, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6226      Doc: 7         Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jarvis Lamont Pate, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying

        his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended

        by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and

        denying reconsideration. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed

        against compassionate release. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir.

        2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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