Court Opinion

ID: 9375082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:00:52.425985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.775117
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6819      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6819

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JEAN PAUL ALVARADO,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00030-MFU-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jean Paul Alvarado, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Michael Welsh, Special Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6819      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jean Paul Alvarado 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 denial of

        a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d

        326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

        Limiting our review of the record to the issue raised in Alvarado’s informal brief, we

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Alvarado

        failed to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release based on the

        Supreme Court’s decision in Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014). See 4th Cir.

        R. 34(b); see also 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States

        v. Alvarado, No. 5:12-cr-00030-MFU-1 (W.D. Va. July 5, 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

                                                     2