Court Opinion

ID: 9965230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 21:00:33.690617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.017265
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6441      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/30/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6441

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        GABRIEL Z. KERSHAW,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cr-00258-CMC-1)

        Submitted: March 29, 2024                                           Decided: April 30, 2024

        Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gabriel Z. Kershaw, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6441      Doc: 9         Filed: 04/30/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Gabriel Z. Kershaw appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion for

        compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First

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

        for reconsideration. Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the

        district court’s determination that the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against

        compassionate release. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (stating standard of review). 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