Court Opinion

ID: 9785001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:00:51.809311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:25.410305
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6282      Doc: 26         Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6282

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ROBERT EDWARD TILLERY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00253-BO-1)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Andrew A.
        Kasper, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6282      Doc: 26          Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Edward Tillery appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release.         After review of the record, we

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that such release

        was not warranted in light of relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors after balancing those

        factors against Tillery’s arguments. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834

        (4th Cir. 2022) (noting standard of review, conclusions district court must draw to grant

        motion, and guideposts for determining whether court has abused its discretion in

        considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. United

        States v. Tillery, No. 5:01-cr-00253-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2023). 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