Court Opinion

ID: 9945991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:00:52.785156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:13.118705
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7004      Doc: 28         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7004

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LAVERN JUNIOR JACOBS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00277-KDB-DCK-1)

        Submitted: February 15, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, D.C., L. Nicole Allan, O’MELVENY &
        MYERS LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States
        Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7004      Doc: 28          Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Lavern Junior Jacobs * 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.            United States v.

        Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th 274, 280 (4th Cir. 2024). The district court denied the

        compassionate release motion after evaluating Jacobs’ individual circumstances—

        including his vaccination status, the vaccination rate at the facility where he was

        incarcerated, the continued risk of severe illness if he contracted COVID-19, his criminal

        history and disciplinary infractions, and his rehabilitation efforts—and determined that

        Jacobs had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting

        release. See United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 128-29 (4th Cir. 2023). We have

        reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse

        its discretion. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing

        standard of review). 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

               *
                 The record includes more than one spelling of Jacobs’ first name. We have
        retained the spelling used by the district court for consistency.

                                                      2