Opinion
21-6571
10-18-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN MICHAEL STEHLIK, Defendant-Appellant.
Kevin Michael Stehlik, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 14, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:13-cr-00694-RBH-1)
Kevin Michael Stehlik, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Michael Stehlik appeals the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court's order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021), petition for cert. filed, No. 21-5624 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2021). "A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law." United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, a district court need not "invariably acknowledge and address each of the defendant's arguments on the record." United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the record shows that the district court properly considered the circumstances presented by the pandemic, Stehlik's health conditions, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, before denying Stehlik's motion. Therefore, we affirm the district court's order. We deny Stehlik's motion to appoint counsel. 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