Court Opinion

ID: 9929512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 21:00:45.254202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:22.501284
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6459     Doc: 10        Filed: 02/01/2024   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 23-6458

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KEITH WILLIE REED,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

                                             No. 23-6459

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTHONY CANNON,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00048-CMH-1; 1:13-cr-
        00048-CMH-3)

        Submitted: January 12, 2024                                Decided: February 1, 2024
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6459      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/01/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Keith Willie Reed and Anthony Cannon, Appellants Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6459         Doc: 10     Filed: 02/01/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              In these consolidated appeals, Keith Willie Reed and Anthony Cannon appeal the

        district court’s order denying their motions for compassionate release. Upon review of the

        record, we discern no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127

        (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order. 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

                                                    3