Court Opinion

ID: 9408228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 21:00:32.715914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.998515
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7721      Doc: 15         Filed: 07/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7721

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SREEDHAR POTARAZU,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00261-AJT-1)

        Submitted: June 30, 2023                                          Decided: July 10, 2023

        Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sreedhar Potarazu, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7721       Doc: 15          Filed: 07/10/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Sreedhar Potarazu appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) or, alternatively, for a

        judicial recommendation for home confinement. We have reviewed the record and found

        no reversible error in the district court’s exercise of its discretion to deny relief. See United

        States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022) (standard of review). Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Potarazu, No. 1:16-cr-00261-AJT-1 (E.D.

        Va. filed Nov. 29, 2021 & entered Nov. 30, 2021). We deny Potarazu’s motions for

        appointment of counsel and to compel. 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