U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2021

United States v. Monica McCants

United States v. Monica McCants
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 20, 2021

United States v. Monica McCants

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONICA MCCANTS, a/k/a Money, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00426-JKB-4)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony D. Martin, ANTHONY D. MARTIN, PC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.

Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting United States Attorney, Daniel A. Loveland, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Monica McCants appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting compassionate release in this case. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court 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. United States v. McCants, No. 1:11-cr-00426-JKB-4 (D.

Md. Feb. 12, 2021). We deny as moot McCants’ motion to submit on briefs. 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.