United States of America v. Jeffrey A. Pleasant, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7174
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00071-REP-RCY-1)
Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders granting in
part his counseled motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and
denying reconsideration. Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in adjudicating Pleasant’s compassionate release motion. See United States v.
Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting standard of review, determinations
district court must make before granting compassionate release motion, and guideposts for
determining whether district court has abused its discretion in considering 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors). Specifically, in reducing Pleasant’s sentence from 622 to 245 months’
imprisonment, the court adequately considered Pleasant’s arguments and explained why
Pleasant’s specific circumstances justified the extent of the reduction. And since the court
ruled on Pleasant’s counseled motion for compassionate release, it did not err by declining
to also rule on his pro se motions for compassionate release. See United States v. Miller,
54 F.4th 219, 227 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A] defendant has no right to hybrid representation for
written motions.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Pleasant,
No. 3:00-cr-00071-REP-RCY-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2023; Dec. 13, 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 --