Court Opinion

ID: 9405630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:35.485571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.180511
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6209      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6209

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROBERT PETER RUSSELL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:91-cr-00056-LMB-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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Peter Russell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6209      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Peter Russell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

        U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no

        abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States

        v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard of review and outlining

        steps for evaluating compassionate release motions). Accordingly, we deny Russell’s

        motion for appointment of counsel and 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

                                                     2