USCA4 Appeal: 23-6880 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AMOS JUNIOR SCOTT, a/k/a Crazy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:00-cr-00069-MR-5)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amos Junior Scott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6880 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Amos Junior Scott appeals the district court’s order denying his second

(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating Scott’s motion. See United States

v. Bethea,

(4th Cir. 2022) (noting standard of review, determinations

district court must make before granting compassionate release motion, and guideposts for

determining whether district court has abused its discretion in considering

(a) factors). Specifically, the court accurately recounted Scott’s arguments,

referenced the rationale set forth in the court’s prior orders related to Scott’s first

compassionate release motion, and again denied relief in light of the relevant

(a) factors. And despite Scott’s claim to the contrary, we discern no error in the

court relying on United States v. Ferguson,

, 271-72 (4th Cir. 2022), to hold

that Scott could not challenge the validity of his underlying conviction or the initial

sentence in a compassionate release motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Scott, No. 1:00-

cr-00069-MR-5 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2023). We deny Scott’s motion for the appointment

of counsel. 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