Court Opinion

ID: 9930907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:00:59.820553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:40.138933
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6919      Doc: 6         Filed: 02/06/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6919

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARTINEZ ORLANDIS BLACK,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00364-RJC-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Martinez Orlandis Black, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6919      Doc: 6         Filed: 02/06/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Martinez Orlandis Black appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

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

        First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We have reviewed the record

        and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested

        relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of

        review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Black,

        No. 3:06-cr-00364-RJC-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2023). 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