Court Opinion

ID: 9365127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:26.635757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.299074
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6007      Doc: 7        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6007

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RANDALL LEE CONRAD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00297-NCT-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                   Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Randall Lee Conrad, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6007     Doc: 7         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Randall Lee Conrad appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. 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.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and

        conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Conrad failed to

        show extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release. See United States

        v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required

        for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order. United States v. Conrad, No. 1:04-cr-00297-NCT-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 2021). 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