Court Opinion

ID: 9382262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:19.965936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.335124
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7233      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7233

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RITA COPELAND,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (4:20-cr-00063-HEH-LRL-1)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rita Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7233         Doc: 10      Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rita Copeland appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse

        of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States

        v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review and outlining steps

        for evaluating compassionate release motions), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

        Accordingly, we deny Copeland’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s

        order. 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