Court Opinion

ID: 9382272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:27.945632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.310212
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7152      Doc: 25         Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7152

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BERNARD CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-D-9)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bernard Celestine, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7152      Doc: 25         Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Bernard Celestine appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in

        part his motion for compassionate release and for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat.

        5194. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

        discretion in denying Celestine’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329

        (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Celestine, No. 4:95-cr-

        00041-D-9 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2022). While we grant Celestine’s motions to exceed the

        length limitations for his informal brief and for leave to file a supplemental brief and

        appendix, we deny his motions for appointment of counsel and to dismiss the appeal. We

        grant in part Celestine’s motion to seal the supplemental appendix and accordingly seal

        pages Supp. A-45 through Supp. A-71 thereof, but we deny the motion to seal as to the

        remainder of those materials. 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