Court Opinion

ID: 9390995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:24.491356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.082976
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6249      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6249

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        EARL WHITTLEY DAVIS, a/k/a Baby Earl, a/k/a E,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:07-cr-00199-DKC-1)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                           Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Earl Whittley Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6249         Doc: 9     Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Earl Whittley Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        reconsideration of the denial of his 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.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

        stated by the district court. United States v. Davis, No. 8:07-cr-00199-DKC-1 (D. Md.

        Feb. 7, 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