Opinion
21-6687
10-22-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEVIN RAY DEESE, Defendant-Appellant.
Helen C. Smith, Apex, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Norman Acker, III, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 19, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:13-cr-00042-D-1)
Helen C. Smith, Apex, North Carolina, for Appellant.
G. Norman Acker, III, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Ray Deese appeals the district court's order denying his counseled 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We affirm.
We review a district court's order granting or denying a prisoner's motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of the district court's considerable discretion. Specifically, the court outlined the relevant facts and procedural history of Deese's case, discussed the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and provided an explanation for its ruling that was both rooted in the sentencing factors and acknowledged many of the mitigating arguments advanced by Deese. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court's order. See United States v. Deese, No. 7:13-cr-00042-D-1 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 29, 2021). 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.