Court Opinion

ID: 9370284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-11 21:00:16.134931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:20.791980
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6152      Doc: 7        Filed: 02/10/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6152

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DEMETRIOUS ADONIS MOORE, a/k/a Meechie,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:08-cr-00124-HMH-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2023                                  Decided: February 10, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Demetrious Adonis Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6152         Doc: 7      Filed: 02/10/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Demetrious Adonis Moore appeals the district court’s order denying his third

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

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

        a district court’s compassionate-release ruling for abuse of discretion. United States v.

        Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Upon review of

        the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the

        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. 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)); see also United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th 162, 170-

        71 (4th Cir. 2021) (describing adequate explanation). Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s judgment. 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