Court Opinion

ID: 9893113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 21:00:42.391682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:40.382036
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6076      Doc: 13         Filed: 10/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6076

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JOHN FORREST HAM, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:10-cr-00046-TMC-1)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 24, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Forrest Ham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Michelle Stoughton, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6076       Doc: 13         Filed: 10/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               John Forrest Ham, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the

        district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992

        F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s order. United States v. Ham, No. 6:10-cr-00046-TMC-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 2023).

        Ham’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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