Court Opinion

ID: 6332494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-18 19:00:36.15072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:20.561857
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-7659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

REGINALD MCKINNON, a/k/a Reg, a/k/a Big Reggie,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:14-cr-00259-RBH-8)

Submitted: April 14, 2022                                          Decided: April 18, 2022

Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Reginald McKinnon appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

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

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or

irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of

discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.”

United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

omitted). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant release. Therefore, 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