United States of America v. Rudolph Valentino Jackson, a/k/a Tripp, a/k/a Rudolph Jackson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6346
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUDOLPH VALENTINO JACKSON, a/k/a Tripp, a/k/a Rudolph Jackson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00266-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 23, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rudolph Valentino Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rudolph Valentino Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his second 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release.* We review a 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). We have reviewed the record
and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the
reasons for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021)
(discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Jackson, No. 3:19-cr-
00266-1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 12, 2022). 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
* In his informal brief, for the first time, Jackson also states that he seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying his first motion for compassionate release. However,
Jackson filed his notice of appeal almost one year after the court entered that order, and the
court relied upon that order in denying Jackson’s second motion for compassionate release.
We therefore dismiss sua sponte Jackson’s untimely appeal of the court’s order denying
his first § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion. United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 125
(4th Cir. 2017) (“When an appeal is filed so late that another judgment in the interim has
relied on the judgment being appealed, adjudication of the appeal could unravel both the
underlying judgment and the intervening judgment . . . [thereby disrupting] the finality of
criminal judgments and the efficiency and fairness of our justice system.”).

-- 2 of 2 --