Court Opinion

ID: 9381465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:15.482818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.785789
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6423      Doc: 26         Filed: 03/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6423

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTONIO LAMONT LIGHTFOOT,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:99-cr-00409-PJM-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: David Benowitz, PRICE BENOWITZ LLP, Washington, D.C., for
        Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Bijon A.
        Mostoufi, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6423         Doc: 26       Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Antonio Lamont Lightfoot appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the

        district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992

        F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (providing standard), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

        Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Lightfoot, No. 8:99-cr-00409-PJM-1 (D. Md.

        Mar. 30, 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