Court Opinion

ID: 9412212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:35.753082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:31.827726
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7295      Doc: 11         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7295

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        STEVEN TERRELL GARRIS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:17-cr-00029-RAJ-LRL-
        4)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Steven Terrell Garris, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7295      Doc: 11         Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Steven Terrell Garris appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

        U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no

        abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States

        v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard). 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