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)
22-7143•United States of America v. Barkley Gardner, a/k/a Big Black
22-7143Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 1, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARKLEY GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
New Bern. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-D-8)
Submitted: February 28, 2023 Decided: April 3, 2023
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barkley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Barkley Gardner appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review the court’s order for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023). Upon
review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination that
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant Gardner’s release. Accordingly, we affirm
the court’s order. We also grant Gardner’s motion to amend his informal brief. 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.