Court Opinion

ID: 9785017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:01.163525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:25.411086
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6118      Doc: 8         Filed: 08/29/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6118

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BENJAMIN MCMILLER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00269-RJC-DCK-1)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Benjamin McMiller, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6118      Doc: 8         Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Benjamin McMiller 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, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After

        reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

        denying McMiller’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (per curiam) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 191

        (4th Cir. 2021) (“[I]n light of this case’s relative simplicity, where the district court was

        aware of the arguments, considered the relevant sentencing factors, and had an intuitive

        reason for adhering to what was already a below-Guidelines sentence, its explanation for

        denying [the] motion for compassionate release was adequate.” (cleaned up)).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. McMiller, No. 3:17-cr-

        00269-RJC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2023). Because it fails to comply with 4th Cir. R.

        28(b), McMiller’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief is denied. 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