United States v. Christopher Reed, Jr. ( 2022 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER REED, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00138-FL-1)
Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 18, 2022
Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Rudolph A. Ashton, III, DUNN PITTMAN SKINNER & CUSHMAN,
PLLC, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States
Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Reed, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order
granting or denying a compassionate release motion for an 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). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion. The court denied Reed’s motions after concluding that he
demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons, discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explaining the reasons for the denial. See United States
v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required
for denial of compassionate release motion). We therefore 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