United States v. Timothy Eddington ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7605 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7605
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2022 Decided: June 28, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7605 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Wayne Eddington 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. See 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
that Eddington 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 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