Court Opinion

ID: 9405643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:49.460466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.206488
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6197      Doc: 8         Filed: 06/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6197

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BORENZO CORTEZ PATRICK,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Richard E. Myers II, Chief District Judge. (7:17-cr-00028-M-1)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                            Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Borenzo Cortez Patrick, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6197      Doc: 8        Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Borenzo Cortez Patrick appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district court’s

        denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble,

        992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the

        record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained

        the reasons for its denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Patrick, No. 7:17-cr-

        00028-M-1 (E.D.N.C. filed Nov. 15, 2022 & entered Nov. 16, 2022). 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