United States of America v. Daniel Aaron Stone

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL AARON STONE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:06-cr-00474-RBH-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2023 Decided: July 7, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Aaron Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Aaron Stone appeals the district court’s text order denying reconsideration
on Stone’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a
district court’s denial of a compassionate-release motion for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (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. Jenkins, 22 F.4th
162, 167 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Upon review of Stone’s arguments on appeal, in conjunction with the underlying
record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Stone’s motion. See United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 384-85
(4th Cir. 2023) (holding, within the compassionate-release context, that district court did
not abuse its discretion in considering (a) defendant’s sentencing exposure on all charged
counts, despite defendant pleading guilty to only two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts; and (b) the
substantial benefit defendant received by pleading guilty to those two counts);∗ see also
United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189-90 (4th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that a district
court need not “acknowledge and address each of the defendant’s arguments on the
record,” so long as the court offers “enough to satisfy our court that it has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking
∗ We held this appeal in abeyance for this court’s decision in Bond.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
authority, so as to allow for meaningful appellate review” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s text order. United States v. Stone, No. 4:06-cr-00474-RBH-1
(D.S.C. Nov. 9, 2021).
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

-- 3 of 3 --