Court Opinion

ID: 4699562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-06-29 19:00:38.695893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:51.608446
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-7602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

SHARAY LAVON WILLIAMS,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00006-BO-1)

Submitted: June 4, 2021                                           Decided: June 29, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jaclyn L. Tarlton, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Sharay Lavon Williams appeals from the district court’s order 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.          After

reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Williams’ motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.

2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Williams, No. 2:16-cr-00006-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12,

2020). 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