United States v. Christopher Bailey

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-7022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7022 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER J. BAILEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00002-1)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. ∗

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher J. Bailey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

∗ The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). USCA4 Appeal: 22-7022 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher J. Bailey appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order

denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.

383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion. The court denied the compassionate release motion after determining that

Bailey had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances, discussing the

applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explaining the reasons for the

denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount

of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). We

therefore 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 aide the decisional process.

AFFIRMED