USCA4 Appeal: 21-7006 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER REED, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00138-FL-1)

Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 18, 2022

Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Rudolph A. Ashton, III, DUNN PITTMAN SKINNER & CUSHMAN, PLLC, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-7006 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Christopher Reed, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order granting or denying a compassionate release motion for an 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. The court denied Reed’s motions after concluding that he demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons, 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 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