Court Opinion

ID: 9404376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:17.598437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.470258
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6124      Doc: 7        Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6124

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JUSTIN TRAVIS TAYLOR,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cr-00087-RAJ-
        DEM-1)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                            Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Justin Travis Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Gail Osyf, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6124      Doc: 7         Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Justin Travis Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review a district court’s

        denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v.

        Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that

        the district court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the

        denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount

        of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm

        the district court’s order. United States v. Taylor, No. 4:19-cr-00087-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D.

        Va. filed Feb. 1, 2023; entered Feb. 2, 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