United States v. Frederick Fields ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6706 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6706
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREDERICK EUGENE FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00015-BO-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Eugene Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6706 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Eugene Fields 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 in analyzing the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 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 Fields’ 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