Court Opinion

ID: 9961117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 21:01:07.816382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:16.958286
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7217      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/16/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7217

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DANIEL THOMAS HERSL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00106-GLR-3)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                           Decided: April 16, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Daniel Thomas Hersl, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7217         Doc: 9       Filed: 04/16/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Daniel Thomas Hersl appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step

        Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for

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

        district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider

        judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous

        factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d

        151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review, we conclude

        that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

        factors did not warrant reducing Hersl’s sentence. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s

        order. 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