United States v. Ryan Brown

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RYAN CRAIG BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00184-RBH-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan Craig Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Craig Brown appeals the district court’s orders (1) denying Brown’s motion for compassionate release, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239; and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motions. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating standard of review for § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021); Wicomico Nursing Home v. Padilla, 910 F.3d 739, 750 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Brown, No. 4:08-cr-00184-RBH-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 14, 2022; Mar. 23, 2022). 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