Court Opinion

ID: 9778325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:00:43.178703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:15.850677
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7057      Doc: 14         Filed: 08/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7057

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CORTESE TRAMAND DAVIS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00136-BO-1)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 28, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Cortese Tramand Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7057       Doc: 14          Filed: 08/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Cortese Tramand Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

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

        Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for

        abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). “A

        district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider

        judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous

        factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d

        151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the record in

        its entirety, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding

        that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant reducing Davis’ sentence. Therefore,

        we 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