Court Opinion

ID: 9365126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:25.731975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.501591
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7040      Doc: 8        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7040

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RICHARD ANTHONY WILFORD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00258-ELH-2)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard Anthony Wilford, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7040      Doc: 8        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Anthony Wilford appeals the district court’s order granting in part and

        denying in part his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We

        review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion.

        United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

        We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and

        sufficiently explained the reasons for the partial denial. See United States v. High, 997

        F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of

        compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we deny Wilford’s motion for default

        judgment 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

                                                    2