United States v. Anthony Laporte

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-7154
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7154 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY MICHAEL LAPORTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cr-00008-RBS-LRL- 1)

Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Michael Laporte, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7154 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Michael Laporte appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023). “In doing so, we ensure that the district

court has not acted arbitrarily or irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and

has conducted the necessary analysis for exercising its discretion.” Id. (internal quotation

marks omitted).

“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine:

(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2023). “Only after

this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.” Id.

On appeal, Laporte challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to

demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release and that the § 3553(a)

factors did not support his release. We find no abuse of discretion. The district court

addressed all of Laporte’s arguments that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for

his release and specifically explained why each failed to meet the standard. Moreover, the

court did not commit any legal error in weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors and did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that they did not weigh in favor of Laporte’s release.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7154 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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