Court Opinion

ID: 9397973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:29.341279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.227023
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6123      Doc: 12         Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6123

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        QUINCY ANDRE JONES,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00152-D-1)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Quincy Andre Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6123      Doc: 12         Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Quincy Andre Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse

        of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not 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 deny Jones’ motion

        to appoint counsel and 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