Court Opinion

ID: 9391091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:26.849766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.399163
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6031     Doc: 8        Filed: 04/28/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 23-6031

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        GARY SPENCER ALBURY, a/k/a G,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

                                             No. 23-6032

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        GARY SPENCER ALBURY,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00178-RAJ-JEB-1; 2:19-
        cr-00068-RAJ-DEM-1)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                        Decided: April 28, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6031      Doc: 8        Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gary Spencer Albury, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6031      Doc: 8        Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Gary Spencer Albury appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion

        for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 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 discern no

        abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

                                                    3