Court Opinion

ID: 9895134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:31.852271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:24.807092
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6797      Doc: 6        Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6797

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KENNETH O’NEAL TIMMONS, a/k/a Keno, a/k/a Kino,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00513-JFA-39)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth O’Neal Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6797      Doc: 6         Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth O’Neal Timmons appeals the district court’s order denying his second

        motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). After reviewing the

        record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Timmons’

        motion. See United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United States v. Timmons, No. 3:12-

        cr-00513-JFA-39 (D.S.C. Aug. 1, 2023). 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