United States v. Michael Carter

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 20, 2025
Docket24-6997
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Michael Carter (United States v. Michael Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Michael Carter, (4th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6997 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6997

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL KENNY CARTER, a/k/a Blaze,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 24-7175

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00351-JFA-1)

Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6997 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Kenny Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Michelle Stoughton, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6997 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Michael Kenny Carter appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and denying his motion for

reconsideration. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Carter’s informal

briefs, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014), and

finding no reversible error, we deny Carter’s motions for a certificate of appealability and

for release pending appeal and affirm the district court’s orders, United States v. Carter,

No. 3:17-cr-00351-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 4 & Nov. 7, 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Samuel Jackson v. Joseph Lightsey
775 F.3d 170 (Fourth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Michael Carter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-carter-ca4-2025.