United States v. Rudolph Jamison, III

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 23, 2022
• Docket: 21-7359
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7359 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RUDOLPH B. JAMISON, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00158-HEH-1)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rudolph B. Jamison, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7359 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Rudolph B. Jamison appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First

Step Act of 2018, § 603(b)(1), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review the

district court’s order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326,

329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). “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. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018)

(internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion. Therefore, 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