United States v. John Doe

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6281 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6281

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (7:01-cr-00027-M-1)

Submitted: February 29, 2024 Decided: April 18, 2024

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Doe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6281 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

John Doe filed several motions seeking relief under Section 404 of the First Step

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, and the compassionate release statute,

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act. The district court denied

relief and, on appeal, we vacated the district court’s orders. United States v. Doe, No. 20-

6165(L), 2022 WL 17413555 (4th Cir. Dec. 5, 2022). On remand, the district court held a

hearing and, ruling from the bench, denied Doe’s motions. Doe again appeals.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to grant a

reduction under the First Step Act, either under Section 404 or the compassionate release

statute. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (compassionate

release); United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497 (4th Cir. 2020) (Section 404). “A

district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider

judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous

factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Jenkins, 22 F.4th

162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the record,

we discern no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision. While we grant Doe’s motion

to proceed by pseudonym, we deny his other pending motions. 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