Court Opinion

ID: 9905686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 21:01:03.958908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:50.374208
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6977      Doc: 6         Filed: 11/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6977

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 28, 2023

        Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Therese Conklin, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6977         Doc: 6       Filed: 11/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael Paul Puzey, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s September 11,

        2023, order upon remand that again denied his motion for compassionate release and

        reinstated motion for compassionate release. Having reviewed the record, we conclude

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

        factors weighed against compassionate release. See United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167,

        172 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining standard of review). Accordingly, 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