Court Opinion

ID: 9382270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:26.617518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.213974
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7263      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-7263

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CRYSTAL MARIE PATE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00346-D-3)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Crystal Marie Pate, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7263      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Crystal Marie Pate appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse

        of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States

        v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review and outlining steps

        for evaluating compassionate release motions), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

        Accordingly, we deny Pate’s motion to appoint counsel and 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