Opinion
21-7034
10-19-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RANDOLPH MILTON WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 14, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00033-TDS-1)
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Randolph Milton Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randolph Milton Williams appeals the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Regarding the request for release based on Williams' family circumstances, the district court found that Williams had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court also denied relief on the claims based on COVID-19, concluding that Williams did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for his early release and that, even if he could do so, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the informal brief does not challenge the district court's conclusions that Williams failed to exhaust administrative remedies and to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for his early release, he has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief."). Even if Williams had not forfeited appellate review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams' motion for compassionate release on the ground that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, ___ S.Ct.___, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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