United States v. Bobby Hayes ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-6000
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BOBBY HAYES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00111-FL-3)
    Submitted: March 29, 2022                                          Decided: April 1, 2022
    Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bobby Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Daniel William Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Bobby Hayes 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 record and conclude that the district court did not abuse
    its discretion. The court denied the compassionate release motion after assuming Hayes
    had demonstrated 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 deny Hayes’ 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-6000

Filed Date: 4/1/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/1/2022