Court Opinion

ID: 9397271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:00:51.900005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:22.992695
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7341      Doc: 11         Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7341

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHARLES EDWARD PHILSON, a/k/a Charles Oliver,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:19-cr-00035-FL-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles Edward Philson, Appellant Pro Se. John Parks Newby, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7341         Doc: 11      Filed: 05/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles Edward Philson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse of

        discretion in the district court’s denial of Philson’s motion. See United States v. High, 997

        F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s order. United States v. Philson, No. 4:19-cr-00035-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 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