Court Opinion

ID: 9374753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:38.545996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.690667
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7312      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7312

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        THOMAS GRANDVILLE ALSTON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00012-D-1)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                  Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Thomas Grandville Alston, Appellant Pro Se. John Parks Newby, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7312      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Grandville Alston appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). After reviewing the record, we

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alston’s motion. See

        United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating standard), cert.

        denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

        United States v. Alston, No. 5:11-cr-00012-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2022). We deny

        Alston’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the

        facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2