United States v. Eddie Blanchard
United States v. Eddie Blanchard
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7210 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7210
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDDIE BLANCHARD, a/k/a Jughead, a/k/a Jug,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00139-HEH-RCY-1)
Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddie Blanchard, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7210 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Blanchard appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step
Act of 2018,
Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble,
992 F.3d 326, 329(4th Cir.), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 383(2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or
irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of
discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.”
United States v. Dillard,
891 F.3d 151, 158(4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks
omitted). After reviewing the record in its entirety, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion. Therefore, we 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished