Court Opinion

ID: 9381118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:00:58.931086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.141897
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6062      Doc: 42         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6062

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DARNELL EUGENE DUCKETT, a/k/a Duck, a/k/a Charlie, a/k/a Donald Duck, a/k/a D,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cr-00147-DKC-3)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Justin Eisele, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant.
        Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, David I. Salem, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
        Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6062      Doc: 42          Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Darnell Eugene Duckett appeals the district court’s order denying his pro se and

        counseled motions for compassionate release. We review the denial of a motion for

        compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326,

        329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

               On appeal, Duckett assigns error to the district court’s failure to expressly

        acknowledge the propriety of Duckett’s assertion that he no longer qualified for sentencing

        as a career offender. Our review of the record shows that the district court essentially

        accepted this to be accurate—albeit without resolving the matter conclusively—but found

        that neither this contention, nor the other bases for relief advanced by Duckett, were

        sufficient to override its analysis of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. It

        is well established that a district court need not “acknowledge and address each of the

        defendant’s arguments on the record.”        United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189

        (4th Cir. 2021). Instead, “the touchstone must be whether the district court set forth enough

        to satisfy our court that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis

        for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful

        appellate review.” Id. at 190 (cleaned up). The district court conformed to this mandate

        here, analyzing Duckett’s motion as supplemented and explaining why a reduced sentence

        would not be consistent with the § 3553(a) factors it deemed most relevant. Thus, we

        discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s analysis.

               Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. United States v. Duckett, No. 8:11-cr-

        00147-DKC-3 (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6062     Doc: 42         Filed: 03/20/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

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

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               AFFIRMED

                                                   3