Court Opinion

ID: 9409082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:00:53.138283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.794722
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7077      Doc: 12         Filed: 07/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7077

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        HAFAN ANTONIO RILEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00251-JFA-1)

        Submitted: July 6, 2023                                           Decided: July 13, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Hafan Antonio Riley, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7077         Doc: 12      Filed: 07/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Hafan Antonio Riley appeals the district court’s order granting in part his motion

        for compassionate release and reducing his sentence by 12 months. On appeal, Riley

        disputes the court’s decision not to grant an even greater reduction. Upon review of the

        record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under

        the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, only a 12-month reduction was

        warranted. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing

        standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release motions).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny as moot Riley’s motion to

        expedite decision. * 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

               *
                To the extent Riley moves to seal or redact certain documents, we deny this request
        without prejudice to seeking such relief in the district court. We express no opinion on the
        merits of any such motion.

                                                     2