United States v. Joshua Reid

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7654 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7654
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA FITZGERALD REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00091-D-1)
Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 25, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Fitzgerald Reid, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States, Daniel William Smith, Assistant
United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7654 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Fitzgerald Reid appeals the district court’s order denying his motion 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. Upon review of the
record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate release. ∗ See United
States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185-87 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review and
outlining relevant factors); see also United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir.
2021) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s order denying compassionate release, despite
error in applying Sentencing Guidelines policy statement, where district court’s 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) analysis was sound). Accordingly, 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
∗
Reid’s new arguments regarding his sentencing credits and his family
circumstances are not properly before us. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (“Our
settled rule is simple: absent exceptional circumstances, we do not consider issues raised
for the first time on appeal.” (cleaned up)). Instead, these arguments are properly raised,
if at all, in the district court in the first instance.
2