Court Opinion

ID: 9882027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:46.284298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:19.153657
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6298      Doc: 18         Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6298

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANTOINE NOBEL SMITH,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00180-BO-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
        Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Andrew A. Kasper,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-6298       Doc: 18         Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Antoine Nobel Smith appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Limiting our review of the record

        to the issues raised in Smith’s opening brief, we conclude that the district court did not

        abuse its discretion in concluding that Smith failed to establish an extraordinary and

        compelling reason for granting compassionate release. See United States v. Malone, 57

        F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. Bartko,

        728 F.3d 327, 335 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing an appellant waives appellate review of an

        issue by failing to raise it in his opening brief). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order. United States v. Smith, No. 5:01-cr-00180-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 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