Court Opinion

ID: 9412349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:39.244158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:10.955000
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6462      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6462

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WILLIE JOHNSON, a/k/a Ace,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00016-JPB-JPM-23)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                            Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Willie Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Carly Cordero Nogay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6462      Doc: 9        Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Willie Johnson appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and his motion for reconsideration. We

        review a district court’s order denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of

        discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of

        review). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its

        discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Johnson,

        No. 5:20-cr-00016-JPB-JPM-23 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 17 & 28, 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