United States v. Calvin Wedington

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 25-6242
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6242 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6242

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN SCOTT WEDINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:82-cr-00086-RDB-1)

Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 28, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Scott Wedington, Appellant Pro Se. David Christian Bornstein, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6242 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Scott Wedington appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and motions to appoint counsel.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release 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). “To grant a compassionate release

motion, the district court must conclude that the prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction

because he has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting relief, and that

release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those

factors are applicable.” Id. at 128 (cleaned up).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that

Wedington failed to identify an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant relief and

that, even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction. We are

also satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint

counsel. See United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 729-30 (4th Cir. 2000) (noting that

district court has discretion to appoint counsel in proceedings under § 3582(c) if interests

of justice so require). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.

Wedington, No. 1:82-cr-00086-RDB-1 (D. Md. June 29, 2021).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6242 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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