Court Opinion

ID: 9375209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:23.230047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.802364
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6764      Doc: 24         Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6764

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LARRY RAY WARD, a/k/a Red,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00286-D-1)

        Submitted: February 17, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, OFFICE OF
        THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael
        F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Neal I. Fowler, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6764      Doc: 24          Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Larry Ray Ward appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. After review of the record, we

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that such release

        was not warranted in light of relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors after balancing those

        factors against Ward’s health conditions, his age, a post-sentencing change in the law

        affecting the career offender classification under the Sentencing Guidelines, Ward’s release

        plan, his post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts and conduct in prison, his exposure to

        COVID-19 and risk of a severe outcome, and steps taken in the Bureau of Prisons to

        address the disease. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (noting standard of review, conclusions district court must draw to grant motion, and

        guideposts for determining whether court has abused its discretion in considering 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) factors). Ward’s appellate arguments challenging the district court’s denial

        decision as insufficiently explained and substantively unreasonable and challenging the

        district court’s weighing of the factors before it are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm

        the court’s order. United States v. Ward, No. 5:11-cr-00286-D-1 (E.D.N.C. June 28, 2022).

        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