United States v. Benjamin McMiller ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-6118      Doc: 8         Filed: 08/29/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-6118
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BENJAMIN MCMILLER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
    Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00269-RJC-DCK-1)
    Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023
    Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Benjamin McMiller, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-6118      Doc: 8         Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Benjamin McMiller appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
    compassionate release, brought pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A), as amended by the
    First Step Act of 2018, 
    Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603
    (b)(1), 
    132 Stat. 5194
    , 5239. After
    reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    denying McMiller’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 
    992 F.3d 326
    , 329 (4th Cir. 2021)
    (per curiam) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. High, 
    997 F.3d 181
    , 191
    (4th Cir. 2021) (“[I]n light of this case’s relative simplicity, where the district court was
    aware of the arguments, considered the relevant sentencing factors, and had an intuitive
    reason for adhering to what was already a below-Guidelines sentence, its explanation for
    denying [the] motion for compassionate release was adequate.” (cleaned up)).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. McMiller, No. 3:17-cr-
    00269-RJC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2023). Because it fails to comply with 4th Cir. R.
    28(b), McMiller’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief is denied. 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: 23-6118

Filed Date: 8/29/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/30/2023