Opinion
22-7011
11-23-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFERY JERMAINE JOE, Defendant-Appellant.
Jeffery Jermaine Joe, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 17, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00768-JFA-1)
Jeffery Jermaine Joe, Appellant Pro Se.
Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Jeffery Jermaine Joe filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release, which the district court denied. Joe later moved for reconsideration of the denial of his request for compassionate release. The district court denied this motion. Joe appeals the denial of both motions.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court-which considered Joe's arguments and set forth its reasoned bases for decision-did not abuse its discretion in finding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting his requests for relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329, 331-32 &n.3 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating that district court's denial of compassionate release motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion and that district courts are to consider relevant § 3553(a) factors), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 383 (2021); United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. United States v. Joe, No. 3:17-cr-00768-JFA-1 (D.S.C. July 7 &Aug. 18, 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.