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)
23-6779•United States of America v. Antwan Ricardo Constant
23-6779Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 3, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6779
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTWAN RICARDO CONSTANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00161-D-2)
Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 3, 2023
Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antwan Ricardo Constant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Antwan Ricardo Constant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and for a sentence reduction under
§ 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. On
appeal, Constant challenges only the denial of his motion for compassionate release. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal
brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues
preserved in that brief.”). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Constant’s motion. See United States v. Malone,
57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s judgment. United States v. Constant, No. 5:06-cr-00161-D-2 (E.D.N.C.
July 21, 2023). 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.