United States of America v. Michael Wayne Bowman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6309
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL WAYNE BOWMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00025-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Wayne Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Day Rottenborn, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Wayne Bowman appeals the district court’s order denying his third motion
for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We have reviewed
the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Bowman’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating
standard of review), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021);
see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s
order denying compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational
and legitimate under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial
to allow for meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Bowman, No. 1:15-cr-00025-JPJ-PMS-1 (W.D. Va. Feb. 19, 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

-- 2 of 2 --