USCA4 Appeal: 23-6505 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6505

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANNY L. BLACKMON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:03-cr-00077-BO-1)

Submitted: January 29, 2024 Decided: February 1, 2024

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6505 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Danny L. Blackmon appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release. Upon our review of the record, we affirm.

A district court may grant a motion for compassionate release after concluding that

the defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting release, and that

release is appropriate under the

(a) sentencing factors. United States v.

Brown,

(4th Cir. 2023). 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

[our] 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. High,

(4th Cir. 2021) (quoting

Chavez-Meza v. United States,

(2018)).

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

despite Blackmon’s medical issues, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against

granting compassionate release.

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

2