United States v. Reggie Blount

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 2, 2023
• Docket: 22-6342
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6342 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6342

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGGIE COLIN BLOUNT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00109-D-1)

Submitted: January 27, 2023 Decided: February 2, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Jaclyn L. Tarlton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6342 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Reggie Colin Blount appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release. Blount argues that the district court erred in considering his plea

agreement and in failing to address one of his arguments.

We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for compassionate release for abuse

of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.

383 (2021). The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Blount’s plea

agreement. See United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 384-85 (4th Cir. 2023). Although the

court did not address Blount’s argument concerning his age and reduced risk of recidivism,

a district court need not address every argument raised by a defendant in a compassionate

release motion. United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021). Instead, “the

touchstone must be whether the district court set forth enough to satisfy our court that it

has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal

decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Id. at 190

(cleaned up). The district court thoroughly analyzed the motion and explained why a

reduced sentence would not be consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Thus, the

court did not abuse its discretion in failing to explicitly address this one argument.

Accordingly, we 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 aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED