United States of America v. Kenneth Thomas Willoughby, a/k/a Black

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH THOMAS WILLOUGHBY, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00416-TLW-13)
Submitted: November 15, 2024 Decided: December 17, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Thomas Willoughby, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Coble Major, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Thomas Willoughby appeals the district court’s order denying his motions
for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), (c)(2). We have reviewed
the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Willoughby’s motion for compassionate release.* See United States v. Centeno-Morales,
90 F.4th 274, 280 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating standard). Willoughby argues that the district
court erred in failing to acknowledge or consider his postsentencing rehabilitation efforts.
Although the district court’s analysis was limited, Willoughby’s case was conceptually
simple, particularly given the brevity of his arguments and the lack of evidentiary support
regarding his rehabilitation claims. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 190-91 (4th
Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Willoughby,
No. 4:11-cr-00416-TLW-13 (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2024). 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
* Willoughby did not challenge in his informal brief on appeal the remainder of the
district court’s order and, therefore, has forfeited appellate review as to any other claims.
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.”).

-- 2 of 2 --