USCA4 Appeal: 22-6792 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6790

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID ANTHONY ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant,

No. 22-6792

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID ANTHONY ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00341-GLR-1; 1:20-cr-00424-GLR-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6792 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Sutherland Clark, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6792 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

David Anthony Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for

compassionate release pursuant to

(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step

Act of 2018,

Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble,

(4th Cir.), cert. denied,

(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. High,

(4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). After

reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in weighing the

(a) factors and concluding they did not support

granting Robinson’s motions. 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

3