Opinion
22-6342
02-02-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGGIE COLIN BLOUNT, Defendant-Appellant.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 27, 2023
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)
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.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.