Court Opinion

ID: 9930421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:00:49.790905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:22.274495
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6140      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6140

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TERRY L. ADAMS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00064-LO-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terry L. Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6140       Doc: 8         Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Terry L. Adams appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Confining our review to the

        issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,

        177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit

        rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”), we conclude that the district

        court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Adams failed to establish an extraordinary

        and compelling reason for granting his motion, see United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167,

        172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard).        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        judgment. United States v. Adams, No. 1:11-cr-00064-LO-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 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