Court Opinion

ID: 9375079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:00:50.118345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.240056
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6745      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6745

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TYWONE ELI REED,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00951-DCN-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tywone Eli Reed, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6745         Doc: 10        Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Tywone Eli Reed appeals the district court's order denying his motion for

        compassionate release, 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. We have

        reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

        denying relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard

        of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). 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

               *
                  We note that, in its discussion of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court
        incorrectly stated that Reed had been convicted of pointing and presenting a firearm.
        Although Reed was charged with that offense in 1999, the charge was ultimately dismissed.
        The district court’s reliance on an erroneous factual premise generally constitutes an abuse
        of its discretion. Kibble, 992 F.3d at 332. However, we affirm despite the district court’s
        erroneous assertion because we are convinced the district court’s judgment was not
        “substantially swayed” by the error. United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir.
        1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                       2