Court Opinion

ID: 9397268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:00:45.405069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:22.955892
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6017      Doc: 7        Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6017

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JERMEL ANTHONY COLEMAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00008-NKM-JCH-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jermel Anthony Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6017      Doc: 7         Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jermel Anthony Coleman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        reconsideration of the court’s prior orders denying Coleman’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

        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. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 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). Accordingly, 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