USCA4 Appeal: 23-7217 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL THOMAS HERSL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00106-GLR-3)

Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 16, 2024

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Thomas Hersl, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7217 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Daniel Thomas Hersl 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, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant reducing Hersl’s sentence. Therefore, 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