Court Opinion

ID: 9411506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:00:50.942893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.122567
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6201      Doc: 7         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6201

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LARRY JAMES WILLIAMS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:20-cr-00129-1)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                            Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry James Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6201         Doc: 7      Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                  Larry James Williams appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and denying his motion for

        reconsideration. 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. 2021). We have

        reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and

        sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        orders.     United States v. Williams, No. 2:20-cr-00129-1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 13 &

        Feb. 14, 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