United States v. Joseph Guadagnoli ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-7153
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOSEPH GUADAGNOLI, a/k/a Ryan Lee, a/k/a Bear,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00363-DKC-1)
    Submitted: December 16, 2021                                Decided: December 20, 2021
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joseph Guadagnoli, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Guadagnoli appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
    compassionate release pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step
    Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 
    132 Stat. 5194
    . We review the district court’s order for
    abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 
    992 F.3d 326
    , 329 (4th Cir. 2021), cert.
    denied, No. 21-5624, 
    2021 WL 4733616
     (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021). “A district court abuses its
    discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized
    factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises,
    or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 
    891 F.3d 151
    , 158 (4th Cir. 2018)
    (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record shows that the district court
    properly considered the circumstances presented by the pandemic, Guadagnoli’s health
    conditions, and the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors, before denying Guadagnoli’s motion.
    Therefore, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-7153

Filed Date: 12/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2021