Court Opinion

ID: 9957234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:07.927024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:15.106470
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6833      Doc: 12         Filed: 04/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6833

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TERRANCE LAMAR WIGGINS, a/k/a T-Wig, a/k/a Barnwell,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
        Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00333-CMC-1)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terrance Lamar Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6833      Doc: 12        Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Terrance Lamar Wiggins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the

        First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After

        reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

        denying Wiggins’ motion. See United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023)

        (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United

        States v. Wiggins, No. 1:12-cr-00333-CMC-1 (D.S.C. July 25, 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