United States v. Eddie Tyson

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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