Court Opinion

ID: 9382264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:21.887926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.094483
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7280      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7280

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        NORMAN LYDELL FORD, a/k/a BooBoo,

                             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. (2:18-cr-00030-D-1)

        Submitted: March 15, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023

        Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Norman Lydell Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Bredenberg, Special 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-7280      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Norman Lydell Ford appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. We review a court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for

        abuse of discretion. United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023). Upon

        review of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying

        Ford’s motion for compassionate release. Moreover, to the extent Ford seeks correction of

        his underlying sentence, his request is barred by our Court’s recent 2022 decision in United

        States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 272 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that “a compassionate

        release motion cannot be used to challenge the validity of a defendant’s . . . sentence”).

               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

                                                     2