United States v. Grady Powers

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 24-6084
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6084 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GRADY WILLIAM POWERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (2:93-cr-00019-MR-1)

Submitted: November 26, 2024 Decided: December 18, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Grady William Powers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6084 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Grady William Powers appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 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). Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district

court’s ruling that the totality of the circumstances in this case, evaluated in light of the

pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, did not warrant the grant of

compassionate release. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 834 (4th Cir. 2022)

(recognizing the “broad discretion” afforded district courts in the compassionate release

context and the “guideposts” for appellate review of a district court’s exercise of discretion

(internal quotation marks omitted)); see United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir.

2021) (discussing “abuse of discretion” standard in compassionate release context).

Accordingly, we deny Powers’s motion to expedite, and we affirm the district court’s order.

United States v. Powers, No. 2:93-cr-00019-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2024). 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