Court Opinion

ID: 9365134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:32.153009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.364146
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7008      Doc: 8        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7008

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ERIC SHAWN BRADLEY, a/k/a E,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00240-JFA-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eric Shawn Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7008         Doc: 8      Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Eric Shawn Bradley appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and denying reconsideration.            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 orders. United States v. Bradley, No. 3:14-cr-00240-JFA-1 (D.S.C. June 17 & Aug.

        17, 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