USCA4 Appeal: 24-6253 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNIS WILLIAM BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cr-00297-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis William Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6253 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Dennis William Brown appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion

to reconsider the denial of his motion seeking compassionate release.

“To grant a compassionate release motion, the district court must conclude that the

prisoner is eligible for a sentence reduction because he has shown extraordinary and

compelling reasons supporting relief, and that release is appropriate under the

(a) sentencing factors, to the extent those factors are applicable.” United States v.

Brown,

(4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and ellipsis

omitted). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for

abuse of discretion.

. When considering a defendant’s motion for compassionate

release, a court must “set forth enough to satisfy [this] court that it has considered the

parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking

authority, so as to allow for meaningful appellate review.” United States v.

Centeno-Morales,

(4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that

this court’s opinion in Brown did not require it to alter its finding that compassionate

release was unwarranted because Brown failed to show extraordinary and compelling

reasons for such relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.

Brown, No. 3:17-cr-00297-RJC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2024).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6253 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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