Opinion
22-6706
09-27-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDERICK EUGENE FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Frederick Eugene Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 22, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00015-BO-1)
Frederick Eugene Fields, Appellant Pro Se.
Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Frederick Eugene Fields 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. 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 in analyzing the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court's order denying compassionate release where "[t]he court's rationale . . . was both rational and legitimate under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]" and "the court sufficiently explained its denial to allow for meaningful appellate review" (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore affirm the district court's order and deny Fields' motion to appoint counsel. 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