Court Opinion

ID: 9894220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 21:00:26.985162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:10.427584
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6943      Doc: 10         Filed: 10/30/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6943

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TIMEIKI HEDSPETH,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:16-cr-00049-RAJ-LRL-
        6)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                 Decided: October 30, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Timeiki Hedspeth, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6943       Doc: 10         Filed: 10/30/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Timeiki Hedspeth appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider

        the court’s prior orders denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions for

        compassionate release based on Covid-19. We affirm.

               Initially, we note that the district court evaluated Hedspeth’s motion under Fed. R.

        Civ. P. 59(e). But “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to motions under

        § 3582 . . . because § 3582 motions—which seek only to alter terms of imprisonment—are

        criminal in nature.” United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010).

        Furthermore, because “§ 3582(c) does not prevent prisoners from filing successive

        motions” for compassionate release, United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 833 n.2 (4th

        Cir. 2022), the court should have treated Hedspeth’s reconsideration motion as a new

        motion for compassionate release, rather than applying the more exacting standards that

        govern Rule 59(e) motions, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (stating that

        courts should liberally construe pro se filings).

               Nevertheless, having reviewed the district court’s assessment of Hedspeth’s medical

        conditions, prior Covid-19 infection, and vaccination status, we are satisfied that the court

        did not abuse its discretion in determining that Hedspeth failed to demonstrate an

        extraordinary and compelling basis for relief. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185

        (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we deny Hedspeth’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm

        the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6943      Doc: 10        Filed: 10/30/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    3