Court Opinion

ID: 9945986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:00:46.303686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:20.813042
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7012      Doc: 5         Filed: 02/27/2024      Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7012

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TRAVANTI ROBERTS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00370-TLW-1)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                   Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Travanti Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7012      Doc: 5        Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Travanti Roberts appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

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

        First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After

        reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

        denying Roberts’ motion. See United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023)

        (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United

        States v. Roberts, No. 4:04-cr-00370-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 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