Opinion
21-7605
06-28-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 16, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1)
Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se.
Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Wayne Eddington appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court's order granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court denied the compassionate release motion after assuming that Eddington had demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances, discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explaining the reasons for the denial. 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. 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