Court Opinion

ID: 9378570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 21:00:38.109021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.255458
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6688      Doc: 12         Filed: 03/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6688

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL GLOVER, a/k/a Glove, a/k/a G, a/k/a HG, a/k/a Jihad Solohadeen
        Pollard,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00240-JFA-2)

        Submitted: February 28, 2023                                      Decided: March 9, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6688      Doc: 12        Filed: 03/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Michael Glover appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release. We

        have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

        reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Glover, No. 3:14-cr-00240-JFA-2

        (D.S.C. May 27, 2022). In addition, to the extent Glover seeks correction of his sentence,

        his request is barred by United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2022). 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