Court Opinion

ID: 9375223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:34.770345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.948891
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7205      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7205

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Justin William Holloway, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7205      Doc: 12          Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Carlos Demond Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying his renewed

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

        release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th

        Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that

        the district court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the

        denial. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Robinson, No.

        6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 4, 2022). 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