Court Opinion

ID: 9408852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 21:00:37.400551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.466151
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7383      Doc: 9        Filed: 07/12/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7383

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DALTON LAQUANE SMITH,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-01038-JFA-1)

        Submitted: June 30, 2023                                            Decided: July 12, 2023

        Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dalton Laquane Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7383       Doc: 9         Filed: 07/12/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dalton Laquane Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step

        Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, and denying reconsideration. We review

        the district court’s orders for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d

        326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its discretion when it “acts arbitrarily or

        irrationally, . . . fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of

        discretion, . . . relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or . . . commits an error of

        law.” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). After

        reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

        discretion in concluding that there was no extraordinary or compelling reason to reduce

        Smith’s sentence. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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