Court Opinion

ID: 9945996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:01:01.408331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:20.203263
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6960      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6960

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANDREW SCOTT WILSON, a/k/a Scott Andrew Wilson,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00203-BO-1)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Andrew Scott Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6960      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Andrew Scott Wilson appeals the district court’s order ruling on several motions,

        including denying Wilson’s motions for compassionate release, brought pursuant to 18

        U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,

        § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and for other miscellaneous relief. After reviewing the

        record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson’s

        motions. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating

        standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.

        Wilson, No. 5:21-cr-00203-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2023). We deny Wilson’s motion for

        the appointment of counsel. 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