Court Opinion

ID: 9407418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 21:00:37.842021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.177832
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6557      Doc: 12         Filed: 07/05/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6557

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BENNY LYNN ISOM,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

                                               No. 23-6112

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BENNY LYNN ISOM,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00241-TDS-1; 1:03-cr-
        00242-TDS-1)

        Submitted: June 26, 2023                                              Decided: July 5, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6557      Doc: 12         Filed: 07/05/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Benny Lynn Isom, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6557      Doc: 12         Filed: 07/05/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Benny Lynn Isom appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motions for a

        sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and reconsideration. We affirm.

               District courts may reduce a term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling

        reasons warrant such a reduction,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and we review a court’s

        ruling on the motion for abuse of discretion, United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329

        (4th Cir. 2021). When deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence based on

        “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances, a court generally proceeds in three steps.

        United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2021). First, the court decides

        whether “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances in fact support a sentence

        reduction. Id. at 186. Second, the court considers whether granting a sentence reduction

        is “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the United States Sentencing

        Commission.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). But there is as of now no

        applicable policy statement governing compassionate release motions filed by defendants.

        Courts are thus “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for

        release that a defendant might raise.”      United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284

        (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). If the defendant passes the first two steps, the court then

        considers at the third step whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, “to the extent that they

        are applicable,” favor early release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Courts have “broad

        discretion” in analyzing those factors.     United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 834

        (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6557         Doc: 12     Filed: 07/05/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

              We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that,

        even if Isom showed extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release, the § 3553(a)

        sentencing factors did not warrant any reduction. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s orders. 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

                                                    4