Court Opinion

ID: 9365138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:35.714401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.393598
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7022       Doc: 9         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-7022

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

                       v.

        CHRISTOPHER J. BAILEY,

                              Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00002-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. ∗

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher J. Bailey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

              ∗
                  The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7022      Doc: 9        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher J. Bailey appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order

        denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v.

        Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.

        383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse

        its discretion. The court denied the compassionate release motion after determining that

        Bailey had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances, discussing the

        applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explaining the reasons for the

        denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount

        of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). 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 aide the decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    2