Opinion
20-7697
07-06-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID WAYNE SMITH, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
David Wayne Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael A. Baudinet, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00070-GEC-1)
Submitted: June 1, 2021
David Wayne Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Michael A. Baudinet, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
David Wayne Smith, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a district court's denial of a motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.[*] Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Smith, No. 7:07-cr-00070-GEC-1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2020). 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 [*] Although the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 (4th Cir. 2020), we conclude that the court properly based its decision on Smith's failure to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying his release. Thus, the court's reference to USSG § 1B1.13, p.s., does not call into question the propriety of its decision.