Court Opinion

ID: 9368355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:00:58.94744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.221166
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6705      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6705

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ENERVA W. TROTMAN, a/k/a Charles Carlos Clark,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (4:91-cr-00092-M-1)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                       Decided: February 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Enerva W. Trotman, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6705      Doc: 10        Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Enerva W. Trotman appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for a

        sentence reduction and compassionate release, challenging only the denial of his

        compassionate release request. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

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

        Trotman, No. 4:91-cr-00092-M-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 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