United States v. Eddie Tyson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6347
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EDDIE L. TYSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00116-RAJ-RJK-9)
    Submitted: December 16, 2021                                Decided: December 17, 2021
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Harry D. Harmon, Jr., HARRY DENNIS HARMON, JR., ESQUIRE, Norfolk, Virginia,
    for Appellant. Raj Parekh, Acting United States Attorney, Joseph Attias, Assistant United
    States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Eddie L. Tyson appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for
    compassionate release under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step
    Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 
    132 Stat. 5194
    , 5239. After reviewing the
    record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tyson’s
    motions. See United States v. Kibble, 
    992 F.3d 326
    , 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard
    of review), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 
    2021 WL 4733616
     (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021); see also
    United States v. High, 
    997 F.3d 181
    , 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court 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)). We therefore
    affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Tyson, No. 2:17-cr-00116-RAJ-RJK-9
    (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2021). 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6347

Filed Date: 12/17/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/17/2021