Court Opinion

ID: 9882023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:42.089709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:19.051188
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6495      Doc: 14         Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6495

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DALLAS EDWARD WEBER, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00020-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dallas Edward Weber, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Wagner, Assistant U. S. Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6495      Doc: 14         Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dallas Edward Weber, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

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

        Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review the district

        court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United

        States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022). Upon review of the record, we discern

        no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Weber failed to present an

        extraordinary and compelling reason for release based on his challenge to the court’s

        jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution. See United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262,

        272 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A] compassionate release motion cannot be used to challenge the

        validity of a defendant’s conviction or sentence.”), petition for cert. filed, No. 22-1216

        (U.S. June 16, 2023). Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss the

        appeal and 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