Court Opinion

ID: 9929511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 21:00:43.545532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:13.539209
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6505      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6505

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DANNY L. BLACKMON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:03-cr-00077-BO-1)

        Submitted: January 29, 2024                                       Decided: February 1, 2024

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6505      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Danny L. Blackmon appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. Upon our review of the record, we affirm.

               A district court may grant a motion for compassionate release after concluding that

        the defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting release, and that

        release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v.

        Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 128 (4th Cir. 2023). We review a district court’s denial of a motion

        for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. Id. at 127. When considering a

        defendant’s motion for compassionate release, a court must “‘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.’” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting

        Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018)).

               We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that,

        despite Blackmon’s medical issues, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against

        granting compassionate release.

               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

                                                     2