Court Opinion

ID: 9352560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 21:00:30.082988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:44.537826
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6183      Doc: 7         Filed: 01/05/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6183

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        STEPHEN ARTHUR LACY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00040-MR-WCM-1)

        Submitted: December 30, 2022                                      Decided: January 5, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Stephen Arthur Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6183       Doc: 7        Filed: 01/05/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Stephen Arthur Lacy appeals the district court’s orders denying his third 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and denying relief on his addendum to

        that motion. We review a district court’s order granting or denying a compassionate release

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

        (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).

               Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Lacy’s informal brief, we

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also

        Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

        document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

        brief.”). The district court noted that it had previously denied Lacy’s earlier motions for

        compassionate release raising substantially the same arguments as those presented in the

        instant motion. Incorporating its earlier orders by reference, the court determined that its

        prior analysis supported denying Lacy’s instant motion for compassionate release. We

        conclude that the district court sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial and did not

        abuse its discretion in determining that, even in light of Lacy’s evidence of rehabilitation,

        the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction. See United

        States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s order denying

        compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational and legitimate

        under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial to allow for

        meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore affirm the

        district court’s orders.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6183         Doc: 7    Filed: 01/05/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              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

                                                  3