Court Opinion

ID: 9961887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:32.710396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:18.122824
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7174      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 23-7174

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00071-REP-RCY-1)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7174         Doc: 10       Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jeffrey A. Pleasant, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders granting in

        part his counseled motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and

        denying reconsideration. Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

        its discretion in adjudicating Pleasant’s compassionate release motion. See United States v.

        Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting standard of review, determinations

        district court must make before granting compassionate release motion, and guideposts for

        determining whether district court has abused its discretion in considering 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) factors). Specifically, in reducing Pleasant’s sentence from 622 to 245 months’

        imprisonment, the court adequately considered Pleasant’s arguments and explained why

        Pleasant’s specific circumstances justified the extent of the reduction. And since the court

        ruled on Pleasant’s counseled motion for compassionate release, it did not err by declining

        to also rule on his pro se motions for compassionate release. See United States v. Miller,

        54 F.4th 219, 227 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A] defendant has no right to hybrid representation for

        written motions.”).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Pleasant,

        No. 3:00-cr-00071-REP-RCY-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2023; Dec. 13, 2023). 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