Court Opinion

ID: 9406109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 21:01:43.800587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.829222
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7605      Doc: 8        Filed: 06/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7605

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1)

        Submitted: December 16, 2022                                        Decided: June 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7605      Doc: 8         Filed: 06/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Timothy Wayne Eddington 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

        granting or 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 assuming

        that Eddington had 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 aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2