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)
22-6686•United States of America v. SHIRLEY INGRAM, JR., a/k/a Raheem
22-6686Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 13, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6686
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHIRLEY INGRAM, JR., a/k/a Raheem,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00069-FDW-1)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 13, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shirley Ingram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Shirley Ingram appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment
of counsel to assist him in requesting a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018
(“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. It is unclear from Ingram’s motion
whether he seeks the assistance of counsel for a motion for a sentence reduction under
§ 404(b) of the First Step Act or for a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(c)(1)(A), which was amended by § 603(b)(1) of the First Step Act. In any event,
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ingram’s motion
because there is no pending action for which the district court could appoint counsel.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United States v. Ingram, No. 3:10-
cr-00069-FDW-1 (W.D.N.C. May 10, 2022).
We remand, however, to permit the district court to correct a clerical error. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 36. The district court wrote that Ingram’s motion for compassionate release is
denied, but the order should state that Ingram’s motion for appointment of counsel is
denied.
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 AND REMANDED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.