Court Opinion

ID: 9962849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:00:54.600484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:59.154579
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7451      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-7451

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BRIAN LEE GOFFIGAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00068-AWA-RJK-1)

        Submitted: April 19, 2024                                           Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brian Lee Goffigan, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7451       Doc: 9         Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brian Lee Goffigan, a federal inmate sentenced as a career offender, appeals the

        district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate

        release. He argues that, in finding no extraordinary and compelling basis for relief, the

        district court violated the rule established in United States v. Hodge, 902 F.3d 420, 427,

        430 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding that Government cannot, for first time on collateral review,

        rely on previously unused predicate offense to justify potentially invalid sentencing

        enhancement). We agree with the district court’s determination that Hodge does not apply

        where, as here, there is no challenge to the validity of the defendant’s sentence. *

               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

               *
                Goffigan does not dispute the district court’s determination that one of his prior
        convictions—use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, in violation of Va. Code Ann.
        § 18.2-53.1—categorically qualifies as a career offender predicate. Consequently, we
        express no opinion on this issue.

                                                      2