Court Opinion

ID: 5136545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-20 21:01:15.57862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:57.277041
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-7153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JOSEPH GUADAGNOLI, a/k/a Ryan Lee, a/k/a Bear,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00363-DKC-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2021                                Decided: December 20, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Guadagnoli, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Joseph Guadagnoli appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021), cert.

denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021). “A district court abuses 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.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record shows that the district court

properly considered the circumstances presented by the pandemic, Guadagnoli’s health

conditions, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, before denying Guadagnoli’s motion.

Therefore, 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