USCA4 Appeal: 23-6846 Doc: 42 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6846

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EUGENE JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:90-cr-00113-MHL-RCY-1)

Submitted: October 10, 2024 Decided: October 15, 2024

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Robert J. Wagner, ROBERT J. WAGNER PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6846 Doc: 42 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release under

(c)(1)(A). After reviewing the record, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating Johnson’s

motion. See United States v. Bethea,

(4th Cir. 2022) (noting

standard of review, findings district court must make before granting compassionate

release, and guideposts for determining whether district court abused its discretion in

considering

(a) factors). Additionally, despite Johnson’s arguments to

the contrary, we discern no error in the court’s reliance on United States v. Ferguson,

, 270-72 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing defendant may not challenge the validity of

his conviction or sentence in a compassionate release motion), cert. denied,

(2024), to hold that Johnson could not challenge the validity of his underlying conviction

and sentence in a compassionate release motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Johnson,

No. 3:90-cr-00113-MHL-RCY-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2023). 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