United States of America v. Danny L. Blackmon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6505
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANNY L. BLACKMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:03-cr-00077-BO-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2024 Decided: February 1, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Danny L. Blackmon appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release. Upon our review of the record, we affirm.
A district court may grant a motion for compassionate release after concluding that
the defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting release, and that
release is appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v.
Brown, 78 F.4th 122, 128 (4th Cir. 2023). We review a district court’s denial of a motion
for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. Id. at 127. When considering a
defendant’s motion for compassionate release, a court must “‘set forth enough to satisfy
[our] court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority,’ so as to ‘allow for meaningful
appellate review.’” United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018)).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that,
despite Blackmon’s medical issues, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against
granting compassionate release.
Accordingly, we 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 --