United States v. Jean Alvarado ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6819 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6819
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEAN PAUL ALVARADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00030-MFU-1)
Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jean Paul Alvarado, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Michael Welsh, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6819 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jean Paul Alvarado appeals the district court’s order denying his 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.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).
Limiting our review of the record to the issue raised in Alvarado’s informal brief, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Alvarado
failed to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release based on the
Supreme Court’s decision in Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014). See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal
brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues
preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States
v. Alvarado, No. 5:12-cr-00030-MFU-1 (W.D. Va. July 5, 2022). 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