United States v. Demiriao Bonds ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7548 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7548
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMIRIAO TRIONE BONDS, a/k/a Memphis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:16-cr-00609-HMH-1)
Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 18, 2022
Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demiriao Trione Bonds, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7548 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Demiriao Trione Bonds appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review the denial of
a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d
326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). The district court appears to have
relied on U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13, p.s., in determining that Bonds
failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. However, USSG
“§ 1B1.13 does not apply to defendant-filed motions” for compassionate release. United
States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 282 (4th Cir. 2020). In any event, even when a district
court errs by applying USSG § 1B1.13, p.s., to a compassionate release motion filed by a
defendant, we may affirm the court’s decision based on its application of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. Kibble, 992 F.3d at 331-32; see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d
181, 187 n.* (4th Cir. 2021) (noting that any error in referring to USSG § 1B1.13, p.s., was
immaterial because district court’s ruling rested on its consideration of the § 3553(a)
factors).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion and that it sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See High, 997 F.3d
at 188-91 (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release
motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Bonds,
No. 6:16-cr-00609-HMH-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 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
2