United States v. Ronesha Greene-McNeil

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 20, 2025
• Docket: 24-7105
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7105 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONESHA GREENE-MCNEIL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:22-cr-00025-FL-1)

Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronesha Greene-McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Kasper, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-7105 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Ronesha Greene-McNeil appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of compassionate

release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th 274, 280

(4th Cir. 2024). “In doing so, we ensure that the district court has not acted arbitrarily or

irrationally, has followed the statutory requirements, and has conducted the necessary

analysis for exercising its discretion.” United States v. Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 127

(4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To grant a compassionate release

motion, the district court must conclude that the prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction

because [s]he has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting relief, and that

release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those

factors are applicable.” Id. at 128 (cleaned up).

We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Greene-McNeil’s

compassionate release motion. The court found that Greene-McNeil presented an

extraordinary and compelling reason for relief, but it ultimately concluded that her

continued incarceration was necessary to serve the § 3553(a) factors. In doing so, the court

adequately addressed Greene-McNeil’s circumstances, arguments, and rehabilitation, and

it thoroughly explained why the § 3553(a) factors supported its decision.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7105 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

We therefore affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Greene-McNeil,

No. 7:22-cr-00025-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. 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