Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
25-6010•United States of America v. Omar Guerra, a/k/a Potato
25-6010Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit29.07.2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR GUERRA, a/k/a Potato,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00600-MGL-4)
Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 29, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Omar Guerra, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Omar Guerra appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).∗ After reviewing the record,
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Guerra’s motion
for compassionate release. See United States v. Brown 78 F.4th 122, 127 (4th Cir. 2023)
(stating standard of review). The district court addressed Guerra’s arguments that
extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for his release and specifically explained why
it rejected those arguments. The court also recognized Guerra’s positive postsentencing
conduct but declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
∗ Guerra also sought a sentence reduction pursuant to retroactive Sentencing
Guidelines Amendment 821. On appeal, he does not challenge the district court’s denial
of his Amendment 821 claim and, therefore, has forfeited appellate review. 4th Cir. R.
34(b); see Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is
an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues
preserved in that brief.”).
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.