Court Opinion

ID: 9919647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 21:01:04.648219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:24.767175
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6099      Doc: 7        Filed: 01/17/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6099

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARTIN LOUIS BALLARD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00232-RMG-14)

        Submitted: December 13, 2023                                      Decided: January 17, 2024

        Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Martin Louis Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6099      Doc: 7        Filed: 01/17/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Martin Louis Ballard appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

        motion to alter or amend the judgment. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the

        district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Ballard failed to establish

        extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting compassionate release. United States v.

        Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831 (4th Cir. 2022) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s orders. United States v. Ballard, No. 2:12-cr-00232-RMG-14 (D.S.C.

        Nov. 14, 2022, & Jan. 4, 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