United States v. Christopher Wilson, Jr. ( 2021 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7061 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7061
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER K. WILSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00021-AWA-LRL-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher K. Wilson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7061 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher K. Wilson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his counseled
motion for compassionate release pursuant to 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. Upon
review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling. See United States
v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-30 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review and outlining steps
for evaluating compassionate release motions), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021).
Specifically, in its opposition to Wilson’s compassionate release motion, the
Government argued that Wilson did not satisfy the threshold requirement, set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), that an inmate first request that the warden of his institution file a
motion for compassionate release before moving for such relief in the district court. Accord
United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 129-30 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing threshold
requirement, which “plainly requires [an inmate] to complete certain steps before filing his
motion in the district court,” but observing that it is “non-jurisdictional, and thus waived if
it is not timely raised”). Despite the Government clearly raising the issue, Wilson did not
provide any objective evidence to establish his satisfaction of the statutory threshold
requirement. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Wilson,
No. 4:15-cr-00021-AWA-LRL-1 (E.D. Va. June 25, 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