Court Opinion

ID: 9375213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:26.189542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.898790
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6912      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6912

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMES EMORY JONES, JR., a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Kirk,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:17-cr-00006-TDC-6)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Emory Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6912      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James Emory Jones, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. 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.),

        cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district

        court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’ motion for compassionate release. *

        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

               *
                 As Jones correctly notes, the district court’s order twice erroneously referred to
        him as “Williams.” However, we conclude that the district court’s error was harmless
        because the court otherwise accurately recounted only facts and arguments that were
        relevant to Jones.

                                                     2