Court Opinion

ID: 9411150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 21:01:27.878182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.105990
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7414      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7414

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROY CHAPMAN CORRELL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00001-NKM-JCH-1)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Roy Chapman Correll, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Barish Swartz, Special Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7414      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Roy Chapman Correll appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of

        a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d

        326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Correll, No. 3:21-cr-

        00001-NKM-JCH-1 (W.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2022). 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