United States v. Antoine Gause ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7298
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTOINE GAUSE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00123-BO-1)
Submitted: May 28, 2021 Decided: June 21, 2021
Before WYNN, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Gause appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Gause argues that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion because it did so without addressing in its order
his arguments grounded in the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and regarding his rehabilitation.
Gause also argues that the district court misunderstood the record in the case because it
characterized the 120-month prison sentence he was serving as a sentence at the statutory
maximum and asserts that this characterization likely infected its consideration of his
motion.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
To commit an abuse of discretion, “a district court must act arbitrarily or irrationally, fail
to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, rely on
erroneous factual or legal premises, or commit an error of law.” Id. at 332 (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted).
After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, 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 Gause’s case and reject as without merit Gause’s
argument that the court’s characterization of his prison term likely infected its
consideration of his motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United
States v. Gause, No. 7:16-cr-00123-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2020). See United States v.
High, __ F.3d __, No. 20-7350, 2021 WL 1823289, at **6-8 (4th Cir. May 7, 2021)
2
(holding that district court need not expressly address each of the movant’s arguments but
must provide a sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review of its
decision).
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
3