United States v. Christopher Taylor

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6707 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6707
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C-Murda,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-7538
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C-Murda,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:15-cr-00009-1)
Submitted: November 28, 2022 Decided: December 12, 2022
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6707 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Jermaine Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6707 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/12/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Jermaine Taylor appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release, motions for reconsideration,
and motions for an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse
of discretion in the district court’s denial of compassionate release and reconsideration
based on the court’s conclusion that Taylor failed to demonstrate extraordinary and
compelling reasons warranting his release. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329
(4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Nor do we find
any abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Taylor’s motions for an evidentiary
hearing. See Richardson v. Kornegay, 3 F.4th 687, 695 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard
of review for denial of evidentiary hearing in federal habeas corpus proceeding).
Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Taylor, No. 3:15-cr-00009-1 (S.D.W. Va.
Apr. 21, 2021, Aug. 2, 2021, Aug. 30, 2021, Sept. 16, 2021 & Oct. 15, 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
3