Opinion
22-6062
03-20-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARNELL EUGENE DUCKETT, a/k/a Duck, a/k/a Charlie, a/k/a Donald Duck, a/k/a D, Defendant-Appellant.
Justin Eisele, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, David I. Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 16, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cr-00147-DKC-3)
ON BRIEF:
Justin Eisele, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant.
Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, David I. Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darnell Eugene Duckett appeals the district court's order denying his pro se and counseled motions for compassionate release. We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 383 (2021).
On appeal, Duckett assigns error to the district court's failure to expressly acknowledge the propriety of Duckett's assertion that he no longer qualified for sentencing as a career offender. Our review of the record shows that the district court essentially accepted this to be accurate-albeit without resolving the matter conclusively-but found that neither this contention, nor the other bases for relief advanced by Duckett, were sufficient to override its analysis of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. It is well established that a district court need not "acknowledge and address each of the defendant's arguments on the record." United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (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 conformed to this mandate here, analyzing Duckett's motion as supplemented and explaining why a reduced sentence would not be consistent with the § 3553(a) factors it deemed most relevant. Thus, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court's analysis.
Accordingly, we affirm the court's order. United States v. Duckett, No. 8:11-cr-00147-DKC-3 (D. Md. Jan. 4, 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