United States of America v. Justus Allred

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6442
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTUS ALLRED,
Defendant - Appellant,
No. 22-6443
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTUS ALLRED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00323-TDS-1; 1:17-cr-
00133-TDS-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Justus Allred, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Justus Allred appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions 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). 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. Allred, Nos.
1:07-cr-00323-TDS-1; 1:17-cr-00133-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 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, Allred challenges his sentence based on an amendment to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines. Because Allred did not raise this argument in his
compassionate release motions and does not present exceptional circumstances, this issue
is not properly before us. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Our
settled rule is simple: absent exceptional circumstances, we do not consider issues raised
for the first time on appeal.” (cleaned up)).

-- 3 of 3 --