Court Opinion

ID: 9928690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 21:00:47.500377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:28.857497
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6575      Doc: 7        Filed: 01/30/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6575

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ERIC DEAN SMITH, a/k/a Big E,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00736-TLW-1)

        Submitted: January 25, 2024                                       Decided: January 30, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eric Dean Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6575      Doc: 7         Filed: 01/30/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Eric Dean Smith appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to

        reconsider the denial of compassionate release. Upon our review of the record, we affirm.

               “To grant a compassionate release motion, the district court must conclude that the

        prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction because he has shown extraordinary and

        compelling reasons supporting relief, and that release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those factors are applicable.” United States v.

        Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 128 (4th Cir. 2023) (alterations and internal quotation marks

        omitted). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for

        abuse of discretion. Id. at 127. When considering a defendant’s motion for compassionate

        release, a court must “‘set forth enough to satisfy [our] court that [it] has considered the

        parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking

        authority,’ so as to ‘allow for meaningful appellate review.’” United States v. High, 997

        F.3d 181, 190 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,

        1965 (2018)).

               We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that,

        despite Smith’s medical issues, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors—specifically the

        seriousness of Smith’s offense and criminal history—weighed against granting

        compassionate release. This is especially true since “the district judge who considered

        [Smith]’s motion for a sentence reduction was the same judge who had sentenced him

        originally.” High, 997 F.3d at 189 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6575      Doc: 7         Filed: 01/30/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

               Accordingly, we 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

                                                     3