Court Opinion

ID: 9405639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:45.833055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.192189
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6236      Doc: 6        Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6236

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMIE LUBELL DIXON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00305-CMC-1)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                            Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jamie Lubell Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6236      Doc: 6         Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamie Lubell Dixon appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Limiting our review of the record

        to the issues raised in Dixon’s informal brief, we conclude that the district court did not

        abuse its discretion by denying Dixon’s motion. See United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th

        167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review); see also 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v.

        Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document;

        under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Dixon, No. 3:11-cr-

        00305-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 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