Court Opinion

ID: 9390990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:18.871594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.059891
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6908      Doc: 8        Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6908

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RAYMOND CRAIG JOHNSON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00199-LCB-2)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                           Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raymond Craig Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6908         Doc: 8     Filed: 04/27/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Raymond Craig Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying 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. 2021). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s compassionate release motion. See

        United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 271 (4th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s order. United States v. Johnson, No. 1:15-cr-00199-LCB-2 (M.D.N.C. July

        26, 2022). 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