Court Opinion

ID: 9945989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:00:50.590989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:20.795814
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6904      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/27/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6904

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        NAKIE HARRIS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00061-SAG-1)

        Submitted: February 15, 2024                                 Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nakie Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6904      Doc: 11           Filed: 02/27/2024   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nakie Harris appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate

        release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). * Upon review of the record, we conclude that

        the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Harris’ motion. See United States v.

        Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order.    United States v. Harris, No. 1:05-cr-00061-SAG-1

        (D. Md. July 25, 2022). 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

               *
                 This court vacated the district court’s prior order denying Harris’ motion for
        compassionate release and remanded with instructions for the district court to consider
        Harris’ rehabilitative efforts, in combination with the other circumstances he presented, to
        determine whether he established an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief.

                                                      2