Court Opinion

ID: 9911806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:00:34.964769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:38.180781
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6626      Doc: 11         Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6626

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ZERRELL ROSS FUENTES,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00123-MOC-DCK-1)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 19, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Zerrell Ross Fuentes, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6626      Doc: 11         Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Zerrell Ross Fuentes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). After reviewing the record, we

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) factors did not warrant reducing Fuentes’ sentence. See United States v. Malone,

        57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s order.    United States v. Fuentes, No. 3:17-cr-00123-MOC-DCK-1

        (W.D.N.C. June 9, 2023). 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