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)
21-6748•United States of America v. Bobby Wayne Debnam
21-6748Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 13, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6748
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY WAYNE DEBNAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00100-BO-1)
Submitted: October 26, 2021 Decided: January 13, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
G. Norman Acker, III, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bobby Wayne Debnam appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district court’s order
granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. After waiving the exhaustion
requirement and assuming that Debnam established extraordinary and compelling reasons
for his release, the court denied Debnam’s motion based on the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors 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 straightforward compassionate release motion). We therefore 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.