United States v. Raynard Eady ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6976 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6976
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYNARD MONTEL EADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00415-DCN-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Rhett
Dehart, Acting United States Attorney, Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6976 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Raynard Montel Eady appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order
granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142
S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, and we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court denied the
compassionate release motion after explaining why Eady failed to demonstrate
extraordinary and compelling circumstances, discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, and sufficiently explaining the reasons for the denial. See United States v. High,
997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial
of straightforward compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s
order. 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