Court Opinion

ID: 9369575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 14:01:37.014728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:15.995434
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7657      Doc: 17         Filed: 02/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7657

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMES LEONARD LANDRY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00171-RDY-DEM-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2023                                       Decided: February 7, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Leonard Landry, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7657      Doc: 17          Filed: 02/07/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               James Leonard Landry 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 order

        granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States

        v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.

        383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse

        its discretion. Regardless of whether the district court’s extraordinary and compelling

        reasons analysis was erroneous, the court also denied Landry’s motion based on its review

        of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.        We conclude that the district court

        sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial and did not abuse its discretion. ∗ See

        United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s order

        denying compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational and

        legitimate under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial to

        allow for meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore

        affirm the district court’s order. We deny Landry’s motion for appointment of counsel.

        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

               ∗
                Landry argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to correct
        erroneous facts in his presentence report, and he further contends that the district court
        relied on these erroneous facts as a basis to deny compassionate release. We express no
        opinion on Landry’s ineffective assistance claim or his challenge to the factual accuracy of
        his presentence report, which are more properly addressed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7657     Doc: 17        Filed: 02/07/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                  AFFIRMED

                                                  3