Court Opinion

ID: 9366762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 21:00:37.958331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.972847
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6658      Doc: 7        Filed: 01/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6658

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CORNELL AUGUSTUS MCKENZIE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00429-LO-1)

        Submitted: January 5, 2023                                        Decided: January 26, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Cornell Augustus McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6658      Doc: 7         Filed: 01/26/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Cornell Augustus McKenzie appeals from the denial of his second motion for

        reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release. The

        district court considered the motion on the merits and denied it. However, motions for

        reconsideration may not be used to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments

        that could have been raised earlier. JTH Tax v. Aime, 984 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2021).

        Here, McKenzie’s motion for reconsideration raises claims not raised in the underlying

        motion for compassionate release. Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to

        show that the motion is denied for failure to raise a proper basis for reconsideration and

        affirm the order as modified. 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