Opinion
23-6298
10-03-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTOINE NOBEL SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Andrew A. Kasper, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 28, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00180-BO-1)
ON BRIEF:
G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Andrew A. Kasper, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Antoine Nobel Smith appeals the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Smith's opening brief, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Smith failed to establish an extraordinary and compelling reason for granting compassionate release. See United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 335 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing an appellant waives appellate review of an issue by failing to raise it in his opening brief). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. United States v. Smith, No. 5:01-cr-00180-BO-1 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 13, 2023). 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