Opinion
21-6347
12-17-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDDIE L. TYSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Harry D. Harmon, Jr., HARRY DENNIS HARMON, JR., ESQUIRE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Raj Parekh, Acting United States Attorney, Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 16, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00116-RAJ-RJK-9)
Harry D. Harmon, Jr., HARRY DENNIS HARMON, JR., ESQUIRE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Raj Parekh, Acting United States Attorney, Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Eddie L. Tyson appeals the district court's order denying his motions for compassionate release under 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. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tyson's motions. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court 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 order. United States v. Tyson, No. 2:17-cr-00116-RAJ-RJK-9 (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2021). 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.