Court Opinion

ID: 9372175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-18 21:00:15.444532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.531691
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6598      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/17/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6598

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        KEIZAR MONTRELL RANDALL,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00922-TLW-1)

        Submitted: November 4, 2022                                    Decided: February 17, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Keizar Montrell Randall, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6598      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/17/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Keizar Montrell Randall, a federal prisoner, 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. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its

        discretion in ruling that the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against

        compassionate release. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021).

        Accordingly, we affirm. 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