Court Opinion

ID: 9395436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 21:00:52.603397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:08.478371
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6936      Doc: 10         Filed: 05/16/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6936

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MUHAMMED MAHDEE ABDULLAH,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00371-FL-1)

        Submitted: January 20, 2023                                       Decided: May 16, 2023

        Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6936      Doc: 10         Filed: 05/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah appeals the district court’s order denying his 18

        U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the court’s order for

        abuse of discretion. United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023). “A

        district court has abused its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to

        consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on

        erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” Id. (cleaned up). We

        have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

        determining that Abdullah was still a career offender. See United States v. Groves, __ F.4th

        __, __, 2023 WL 2941415, at *7 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[A]lthough the Guidelines exclude

        attempt offenses, § 841(a)(1) does not criminalize attempt[s] such that an § 841(a)(1)

        distribution offense would be categorically disqualified from being treated as a “controlled

        substance offense.”). ∗ We therefore 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

               ∗
                 This Court limits review to issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir.
        R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                     2