The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-7602•United States of America v. Sharay Lavon Williams
20-7602Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 29, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7602
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHARAY LAVON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00006-BO-1)
Submitted: June 4, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jaclyn L. Tarlton, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Sharay Lavon Williams appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First
Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After
reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Williams’ motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.
2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Williams, No. 2:16-cr-00006-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12,
2020). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.