United States v. Deyonta Hinton ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6420 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6420
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEYONTA HINTON, a/k/a Red, a/k/a Mike,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cr-00080-MSD-RJK-5)
Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 26, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deyonta Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6420 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Deyonta Hinton 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).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Hinton’s informal brief, we
find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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.”). We conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See
United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s 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 and deny Hinton’s motion to appoint counsel.
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