Court Opinion

ID: 9396882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:35.072486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.387413
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7226      Doc: 7         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7226

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DEMETRIOS DONELL MCNEILL,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00318-D-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Demetrios Donell McNeill, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7226      Doc: 7        Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Demetrios Donell McNeill appeals the district court’s order denying his fifth motion

        for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and denying his motion to

        appoint counsel. We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for

        abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We

        have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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. United

        States v. McNeill, No. 5:15-cr-00318-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 11, 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