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)
21-6853•United States of America v. Tyrone Anthony Johnson, a/k/a Tyrone A. Johnson
21-6853Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 22, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6853
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYRONE ANTHONY JOHNSON, a/k/a Tyrone A. Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:10-cr-00692-PWG-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 22, 2021
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. McKenna, BRENNAN MCKENNA & LAWLOR, CHTD., Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellant. Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting United States Attorney, Thomas M. Sullivan,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Anthony Johnson appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release and denying reconsideration. 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. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021
WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 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). We therefore affirm the
district court’s orders. 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.