Opinion
22-6183
01-05-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHEN ARTHUR LACY, Defendant-Appellant.
Stephen Arthur Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 30, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00040-MR-WCM-1)
Stephen Arthur Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.
Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Arthur Lacy appeals the district court's orders denying his third 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and denying relief on his addendum to that motion. 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).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Lacy's informal brief, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief."). The district court noted that it had previously denied Lacy's earlier motions for compassionate release raising substantially the same arguments as those presented in the instant motion. Incorporating its earlier orders by reference, the court determined that its prior analysis supported denying Lacy's instant motion for compassionate release. We conclude that the district court sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial and did not abuse its discretion in determining that, even in light of Lacy's evidence of rehabilitation, the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction. 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 orders.
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.