Court Opinion

ID: 9374755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:41.150359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.096191
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6956      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6956

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RONNIE BOWMAN, a/k/a Young,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00349-CMC-1)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ronnie Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6956        Doc: 9       Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ronnie Bowman 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 review a district

        court’s order granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion.

        See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (providing standard), cert. denied,

        142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion in denying relief after analyzing the relevant 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) factors.    See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021).

        Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

        Bowman, No. 3:01-cr-00349-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 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