USCA4 Appeal: 22-6745 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6745

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYWONE ELI REED, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00951-DCN-1)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tywone Eli Reed, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6745 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Tywone Eli Reed 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, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, 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

* We note that, in its discussion of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court incorrectly stated that Reed had been convicted of pointing and presenting a firearm.

Although Reed was charged with that offense in 1999, the charge was ultimately dismissed.

The district court’s reliance on an erroneous factual premise generally constitutes an abuse of its discretion. Kibble, 992 F.3d at 332. However, we affirm despite the district court’s erroneous assertion because we are convinced the district court’s judgment was not “substantially swayed” by the error. United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).