Court Opinion

ID: 9393354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 21:00:28.716189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:52.545860
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7254      Doc: 9         Filed: 05/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7254

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JUSTICE DEVON PRICE, a/k/a Kithe,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00078-D-2)

        Submitted: March 27, 2023                                           Decided: May 8, 2023

        Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Justice Devon Price, Appellant Pro Se. John Parks Newby, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7254       Doc: 9         Filed: 05/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Justice Devon Price appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review the denial of

        such motions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir.

        2023). “[A] district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails

        to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on

        erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v.

        Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 195 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon

        review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that,

        assuming Price had established extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, the

        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting him relief. We therefore deny Price’s

        motion for appointment of counsel and 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

               *
                 Although the district court denied Price’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the same
        order, Price does not assign error to that decision. Thus, we do not reach that portion of
        the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177
        (4th Cir. 2014) (limiting this Court’s review to issues preserved in informal brief).

                                                       2