Court Opinion

ID: 9785002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:00:52.507764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:29.185274
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6489      Doc: 6        Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6489

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MITCHELL NARADA KELLY, a/k/a Duncey,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:15-cr-00511-MGL-1)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mitchell Narada Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-6489      Doc: 6         Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mitchell Narada Kelly appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district

        court’s denial of Kelly’s motion. See United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 269

        (4th Cir. 2022) (noting standard of review), petition for cert. filed, No. 22-1216

        (U.S. June 16, 2023). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Kelly,

        No. 0:15-cr-00511-MGL-1 (D.S.C. May 3, 2023). We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2