Opinion
21-6603
10-22-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAYNE VICK, Defendant-Appellant.
Wayne Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 19, 2021.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00075-D-1)
Wayne Vick, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Vick appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting compassionate release in this case. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review); 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. Vick, No. 5:12-cr-00075-D-1 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 25, 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