USCA4 Appeal: 22-7011 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFERY JERMAINE JOE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00768-JFA-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffery Jermaine Joe, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7011 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffery Jermaine Joe filed an

(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for

compassionate release, which the district court denied. Joe later moved for reconsideration

of the denial of his request for compassionate release. The district court denied this motion.

Joe appeals the denial of both motions.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court—which considered

Joe’s arguments and set forth its reasoned bases for decision—did not abuse its discretion

in finding that the

(a) factors weighed against granting his requests for

relief. See United States v. Kibble,

, 331-32 & n.3 (4th Cir.) (per curiam)

(stating that district court’s denial of compassionate release motion is reviewed for abuse

of discretion and that district courts are to consider relevant § 3553(a) factors), cert. denied,

(2021); United States v. High,

(4th Cir. 2021)

(discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Joe, No. 3:17-cr-00768-

JFA-1 (D.S.C. July 7 & Aug. 18, 2022). 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