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)
21-7023•United States of America v. Michael Rankins
21-7023Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 22, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL RANKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:14-cr-00003-FL-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 22, 2021
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Lucy Partain Brown, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Rankins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his amended 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir. 2021)
(providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release
motions), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.