Opinion
20-7825
12-17-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN MAURICE HENOUD, a/k/a John Harvey, a/k/a J. M. Harvey, a/k/a J. M. Hardey, a/k/a Jerry Geohn Davidson, Defendant-Appellant.
John Maurice Henoud, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 18, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00004-AWA-TEM-1)
John Maurice Henoud, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
John Maurice Henoud appeals the district court's order denying his motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).[*] The district court determined that Henoud had not established extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction in his sentence; and even if he had, it would still deny his motions based on consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Henoud, No. 2:04-cr-00004-AWA-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2020); see also United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 330-32 (4th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185-91 (4th Cir. 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
[*] After filing this appeal, Henoud notified this court that he was placed in home confinement pursuant to the CARES Act, but he remains in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021). Because it would still be possible for the district court to grant him effectual relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), by reducing his prison sentence to time served and releasing him from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, we conclude that this appeal is not moot. See United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). We further conclude the district court's order was a final order. See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015).