United States v. Billy Burgess

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Billy Burgess

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6885      Doc: 13         Filed: 06/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 2




                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                               No. 23-6885


        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BILLY CHARLES BURGESS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.



        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00341-D-1)


        Submitted: June 25, 2024                                          Decided: June 27, 2024


        Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
        Circuit Judge.


        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


        Billy Charles Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.


        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6885      Doc: 13         Filed: 06/27/2024      Pg: 2 of 2




        PER CURIAM:

               Billy Charles Burgess appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. § 3582
(c)(1)(A)(i). We have reviewed the

        record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

        Burgess’ motion. See United States v. Kibble, 
992 F.3d 326, 329
 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing

        standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Burgess,

        No. 5:08-cr-00341-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 2023).           We deny Burgess’ motion for

        appointment of counsel and to expedite. 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


Reference

Status
Unpublished