Court Opinion

ID: 9412214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:37.859253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:37.450408
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7447      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7447

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RAUL ORTIZ,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00235-MR-1)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                            Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raul Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7447      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Raul Ortiz 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 denial of a compassionate

        release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329

        (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its

        discretion and sufficiently explained 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 compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we 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