United States v. Nathaniel Josey

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6358 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6358 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHANIEL JOSEY, a/k/a Neil, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00111-BO-1) Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Josey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6358 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Josey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release based on his age and medical conditions (obesity and diabetes) considered in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling that the totality of the circumstances in this case, evaluated in light of the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, did not warrant the grant of compassionate release or a sentence reduction. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 834 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing the “broad discretion” afforded district courts in the compassionate release context and the “guideposts” for appellate review of a district court’s exercise of discretion (internal quotation marks omitted)); see United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing “abuse of discretion” standard in compassionate release context). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Josey, No. 7:18-cr-00111-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 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