United States v. James Landry

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7657 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7657

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES LEONARD LANDRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00171-RDY-DEM-1)

Submitted: January 30, 2023 Decided: February 7, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Leonard Landry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7657 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

James Leonard Landry 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

granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. 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. Regardless of whether the district court’s extraordinary and compelling

reasons analysis was erroneous, the court also denied Landry’s motion based on its review

of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the district court

sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial and did not abuse its discretion. ∗ See

United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s order

denying compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational and

legitimate under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial to

allow for meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore

affirm the district court’s order. We deny Landry’s motion for appointment of counsel.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

∗ Landry argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to correct erroneous facts in his presentence report, and he further contends that the district court relied on these erroneous facts as a basis to deny compassionate release. We express no opinion on Landry’s ineffective assistance claim or his challenge to the factual accuracy of his presentence report, which are more properly addressed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7657 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/07/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED