Court Opinion

ID: 9396877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:30.154231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.358521
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7062      Doc: 9         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7062

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMES CALVIN BROOKS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00004-D-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Calvin Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-7062         Doc: 9      Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James Calvin Brooks appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review a district court’s

        denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v.

        Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 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. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount

        of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm

        the district court’s order. United States v. Brooks, No. 2:17-cr-00004-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept.

        8, 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