Court Opinion

ID: 9930912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:01:05.635424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:35.050167
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6782      Doc: 16         Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6782

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FELIX A. OKAFOR,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00059-M-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Felix A. Okafor, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6782      Doc: 16         Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Felix A. Okafor appeals the district court’s order granting in part his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On appeal, Okafor argues that

        the district court erred in not reducing his sentence to time served. 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 further reducing Okafor’s 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. Okafor, No. 5:12-cr-

        00059-M-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 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