Court Opinion

ID: 9405641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:47.63154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.163435
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6363      Doc: 5         Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                  No. 23-6363

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        EUGENE J. TALIK, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00051-JPB-1)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                             Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eugene J. Talik, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6363      Doc: 5          Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Eugene J. Talik, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. To succeed on his motion, Talik had

        to establish, among other things, that relief was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

        sentencing factors. United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 195 (4th Cir. 2022). Upon

        review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Talik

        failed to make this showing. * See id. (stating standard of review). 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

               *
                 Noting that Talik had previously filed a compassionate release motion, the district
        court held that the instant motion was barred by Section 404(c) of the First Step Act of
        2018. But Section 404(c), which pertains only to successive motions to reduce certain drug
        sentences, is irrelevant here. See United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258, 259-60 (4th Cir.
        2020). Moreover, we have expressly indicated that successive compassionate release
        motions are not prohibited by statute. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 833 n.2
        (4th Cir. 2022). Thus, as Talik points out, the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

               In addition, the district court improperly treated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
        § 1B1.13(2) as a prerequisite for relief. See United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 283
        (4th Cir. 2020). Nevertheless, because the court properly exercised its discretion in
        assessing the § 3553(a) factors, we are satisfied that the court’s errors do not require
        vacatur.

                                                      2