United States v. Alvin Gregory

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6503
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVIN GREGORY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00316-BO-1)
Submitted: July 23, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvin Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alvin Gregory appeals the district court’s orders denying his 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, and his
subsequent motion for reconsideration. We review the denial of a motion for
compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329
(4th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court assumed without deciding that Gregory exhausted
his administrative remedies and that he stated extraordinary and compelling circumstances
warranting release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the
motions, however, after analyzing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determining that
relief was not warranted under the circumstances in Gregory’s case.
Upon review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Gregory’s motion for compassionate release based on its consideration of the § 3553(a)
factors. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders. 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